PATH
messages. The ADSPEC is designed to gather up information about
available resources along the path, so also has to be mutable along the
path in order to fulfil its purpose.
I hope that helps to clarify things.
--
Andrew McDonald
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.mcdonald.org.uk/andr
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 08:51:16AM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
> Took off linux-man from cc:,
>
> On Sun, 14 Oct 2007, Andrew McDonald wrote:
> >+The tapped packets are not forwarded by the kernel, it is the
> >+user's responsibility to send them out again.
>
> T
Hi,
I discovered that the current description of the IPV6_ROUTER_ALERT
sockopt in ipv6.7 is significantly wrong. A patch to fix the
description is below. I sent a version of this earlier in the year to
[EMAIL PROTECTED], but nothing happened with it at the time.
The correction is based on reading
Take account of whether a socket is bound to a particular device when
selecting an IPv6 raw socket to receive a packet. Also perform this
check when receiving IPv6 packets with router alert options.
Signed-off-by: Andrew McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
diff -uprN linux-2.6.13-rc3.orig/inclu
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 08:12:58PM -0400, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / ?$B5HF#1QL@ wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Thu, 21 Jul 2005 21:44:43 +0100), Andrew
> McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
>
> > I guess the fix would be a matter of changing:
> &
Hi,
I've noticed a difference between the IPv4 and IPv6 router alert
handling, which I think constitutes a bug.
For IPv4, you can bind a socket to an interface. If you use the
IP_ROUTER_ALERT sockopt then packets with router alert options are only
delivered to raw sockets bound to the incoming in
