Hi all,
thanks for a nice lift off.
* Julien BLACHE <jbla...@debian.org> [2011-01-13 18:44] wrote:
> Good; priority should be given to a "real" mc routing daemon, ie what
> the user expects to get when she installs multicast-routing-daemon.
This will definitely work for me.
> >> The pimd/xorp situation should be investigated, as I'm not sure both can
> >> be installed at the same time either.
> >
> > They cannot because multicast routing always needs access to the multicast
> > routing table (MRT), which the kernel lets you only access through a socket
> > after calling setsockopt() with MRT_INIT (see above).
>
> Yes, but it isn't as clear cut as it looks given xorp can do mc routing
> or not depending on configuration (AIUI from the description). If that
> is the case, you may want to use xorp for some tasks and pimd for mc
> routing.
They will conflicts as well if you enable mc routing in xorp, but I
would agree that we cannot just add static conflict between these to
packages. I would say, that we can safely assume, that if the user is
able to configure xorp she is capable of solving the conflict on MRT
access (e.g. by removing pimd or reconfiguring xorp).
Antonin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
