On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 04:14:11PM +0100, Edward Cree wrote: > On 06/05/16 15:43, Phil Sutter wrote: > > On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 03:28:25PM +0100, Edward Cree wrote: > >> Since we can only configure unicast, we probably want to be able to > >> display unicast, rather than multicast. > > Furthermore, the kernel even rejects multicast peer addresses. > Yes, but a future kernel might not, and iproute2 is meant to be forward- > compatible.
Sorry, but I fail to see how this might break forward compatibility. Quite the contrary, suppose geneve in future supported multicast peers, current iproute2 would fail to recognize it's existence. What am I missing here? > > Why do you then propose a dubious fix to a dubious check instead of > > getting rid of it in the first place? > Because John Linville clearly had some reason for putting a check there, > and he probably knows better than me. Chesterton's fence. A valid point, indeed. In my opinion the same applies to your patch as well, as instead of removing the fence you're moving it to the other lane. :) Cheers, Phil
