Hi:
Here it is. I would love to follow up and interview you some time.
http://www.circleid.com/articles/2539.asp
Cheers
Joe Baptista
--
Planet Communications Computing Facility
a division of The dot.GOD Registry, Limited
On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Guru Yeleswarapu wrote:
Iam also very much
This could be of interest.
Comments directly to me or possibly on the v6ops mailing-list, I think.
There may be some issues wrt. RFC2460 that may warrant discussion here
too, though.
--
Pekka Savola Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy not those
sorry about that - i didn't mean to cc the list.
Cheers
Joe Baptista
--
Planet Communications Computing Facility
a division of The dot.GOD Registry, Limited
On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, Joe Baptista wrote:
Hi:
Here it is. I would love to follow up and interview you some time.
Dear all,
I'd like to get some progress on the node requirements draft. I have some outstanding
issues to address, which I will in the next few days. However, the high-order bit to
settle is about the requirements language.
The current draft can be found here:
On Sun, 22 Sep 2002 17:34:32 -0700,
Michael Hunter [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
In 2292bis (rev 7) there are two errors:
1) ND_OPT_PI_FLAG_ROUTER only shows up in section 15 (summary of new
definitions).
2) ip6_ext shows up in section 15 (summary of new definitions) but it
is mentioned in
On Mon, 23 Sep 2002 13:01:21 -0700,
Michael Hunter [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Sorry, but I don't think we should incorporate this to the
specification. If an application writer assumes the existence of
ip6r0_addr, the source code will not compile with a compiler that
does not support the
On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Title : Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6
[...]
This is probably a dumb question, but is there must be a reason why these
API's don't talk at all about ioctl's etc? For example, I see no standard
way of obtaining (all or
Let me see if I can remember the reasons I had
for removing the array.
1. It would make the structure declaration similar to
the rest of extension headers.
2. 2292 and early 2292bis defined the array of size 1,
but it is valid to have a routing header with 0 segleft
and no IPv6 addresses.
Hi group,
I am fresh to both ipv6 and linux kernel programming..I am trying to
learn networking stack implementation of Linux kernel 2.4.7...Could
someone please clarify a few doubts...
1. I find a few structure definitions related to IPV6 headers in both
(a)/usr/include/netinet/ip6.h and
On Wed, 25 Sep 2002 13:52:58 -0700,
Michael Hunter [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[...]
I didn't remember the reason why the member name was removed, so I
found it from the web. You'll get the answer from the discussion
starting at the following URL:
Hello Rajesh
some of the headers are defined directly from RFCs.
in this case RFC 2292 is one of the RFC's used.
If you refer to this document, you will see that
linux uses some examples of these headers verbatim.
Also, implementation specific queries should be
directed to support services for
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 13:03:53 +0900,
JINMEI Tatuya [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Additionally, I suspect the removal actually breaks user code so much.
As I said before, user applications are usually expected to use
library functions for source routing and to not use the ip6r0_addr
member
12 matches
Mail list logo
