> -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 10:45 AM > To: Templin, Fred L > Cc: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明; netdev@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/05] ipv6: RFC4214 Support > > On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 10:41:49 -0800 > "Templin, Fred L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Yoshifuji, > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 10:37 AM > > > To: Templin, Fred L > > > Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/05] ipv6: RFC4214 Support > > > > > > Hello. > > > > > > In article > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > eing.com> (at Tue, 6 Nov 2007 17:16:11 -0800), "Templin, Fred > > > L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says: > > > > > > > @@ -154,6 +155,14 @@ static struct ip_tunnel * ipip6_tunnel_l > > > > struct net_device *dev; > > > > char name[IFNAMSIZ]; > > > > > > > > +#if defined(CONFIG_IPV6_ISATAP) > > > > + /* ISATAP (RFC4214) - router address in daddr */ > > > > + if (!strncmp(parms->name, "isatap", 6)) { > > > > + parms->i_key = parms->iph.daddr; > > > > + parms->iph.daddr = remote = 0; > > > > + } > > > > +#endif > > > > + > > > > for (tp = __ipip6_bucket(parms); (t = *tp) != NULL; tp = > > > > &t->next) { > > > > if (local == t->parms.iph.saddr && remote == > > > > t->parms.iph.daddr) > > > > return t; > > > > > > I do not think it is a good idea to change the behavior based on > > > the interface name. > > > > The goal was to avoid requiring changes to applications such as > > 'iproute2', i.e., the intention was for a standalone code > insertion point > > within the kernel itself. What do you suggest? > > Agreed, magic names are evil. > > Change iproute2 utilities, if it is more logical for administration.
This being an experimental release, I would prefer to go forward with a standalone kernel solution for the first iteration then come back with the iproute2 changes at a later time. IMHO, we should only touch iproute2 once, and it should be an architected solution - not just a quick hack. For the short term, timeliness of interoperability testing with the other major OS's should be the highest priority, IMHO. Other opinions? Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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
