On Mon, 2005-14-11 at 00:43 +0100, Thomas Graf wrote: > * jamal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2005-11-13 10:09 > > Issue-1) > > We have agreed to implement based on 2863. > > Stefan has gone one step further and suggested extra states for L3 > > status. The idea for the extra states being to resolve in this fix old > > standing issue (since 2.2 days) of higher metric routes being added > > based on ip address add/del and admin status. > > > > c) dont do anything - current behavior is good enough. > > Thomas main proponent. > > That is a very misleading statement. I said current behaviour is good > enough on the _kernel_ side.
Yes, thats what is meant by the above ;-> Make no changes in the kernel because current behavior is good enough. I am trying to avoid going into these L3 discussions since they seem to digress into tangents. Trust me - I do have a lot to say; but like i said to Stefan, lets do that later. For now if you and Krzysztof could verify your position on the following question from other email, then i will repost again the issues: On Sun, 2005-13-11 at 16:47 +0100, Stefan Rompf wrote: > Am Sonntag 13 November 2005 16:09 schrieb jamal: > > > We have agreed to implement based on 2863. > > not really. We already have two different opinions here: > > a) Support RFC2863 in kernel. Propenents Stefan and Jamal (it seems) > > b) Add another state bit that maps to IFF_ESTABLISHED or IFF_DORMANT. > A RFC2863-like state may be derived from these bits. Proponents > Krzysztof and Thomas. > I thought we went past this already. And yes, you captured my opinion on 2863 support being in the kernel. Just like 1213 is in the kernel. But are you sure this is not resolved already? Krzysztof, Thomas - can you speak if this is still your position? I will then repost and update the issues list. cheers, jamal - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
