On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 06:19:25PM -0400, Peter Memishian wrote: > > - we currently do not set IFF_BROADCAST on an IPv6 interface > > (presumably the logic is that IPv6 doesn't offer a broadcast service on > > that interface even though the datalink provides a broadcast service.) > > Would anything break if we changed this? > > Before getting that far, I think we neet to bolt down what the flag is > supposed to mean. In general, I'd expect IP (logical/physical) interface > flags to tell applications/consumers about the IP (logical/physical) > interface capabilities, not the capabilities of the underlying datalink. > (Otherwise, what do flags like IFF_IPV6 ormean at all?) So, having > IFF_BROADCAST clear on an IPv6 interface seems appropriate.
Well, point2point can only mean one thing and it ought to say something about the underlying link (which could be a logical link, e.g., PPoE). Logically, then :) broacast -> !point2point... But yes, these flags are a bit of a soup. Legacy. At worst you'll end up with some code to hide IFF_BROADCAST on IPv6 interfaces so things that would break (!) don't. Nico -- _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
