[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
(usagi-users 00748) Re: [Patch 2of2] IPv6 routers don't
- To: yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明)
- Subject: (usagi-users 00748) Re: [Patch 2of2] IPv6 routers don't
- From: kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 23:43:16 +0400 (MSK DST)
- Cc: usagi-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, dlstevens@xxxxxxxxxx, pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <20010831043412T.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> from "YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明" at Aug 31, 1 04:34:12 am
- List-subscribe: <mailto:usagi-users-ctl@linux-ipv6.org?body=subscribe>
- Reply-to: usagi-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hello!
> - whether we forward a packet from it
> - whether we set is_router flag in NA to be sent on it
> - whether we join (some scope(s) of) all-routers multicast on it
>
> SHOULD be the same.
Why? They should be different flags and the last is not flag at all.
Kernel is not going to police you.
What's about the first item, it is too complicated. Grabbing device
lock in data path is not an option.
> ping6 ff02::2%eth0 ?
Compare to ping4 224.0.0.2%eth0
Routers lose expensive entry in multicast entry not for fun,
but for work.
Alexey