Erik Nordmark writes: > If you understand udp.c then you should be able to convince yourself > that your use of udp_v6lastdst doesn't interfere with its use in TX. > If you don't understand udp.c sufficiently well to do that, then it > might be that you shouldn't touch udp.c in the first place.
I agree with Erik on this point, but I don't think this is actually an architectural issue, but rather a matter of design. I'd encourage the folks involved to handle it off of the ARC mailing list. The other issue -- lack of IP Instances information -- is architectural, as it involves the support of one project by another. As long as we're suffering a pair of linked patches to get to the new API here, it does seem reasonable to say that we could include the required arguments to make stack instances work in the future. As long as we're paying the patching complexity price now, is there a specific reason to _avoid_ doing that? -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson at sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
