On Wed, 2 Oct 2002 14:10:35 -0700,
Michael Hunter [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
recent source code of FreeBSD and NetBSD (which have not supported
2292bis yet). The only occurrence of ip6r0_addr other than in user
applications is in tcpdump, where no compatibility issue exists since
tcpdump uses its own header definitions.
Which is telling about the stability and
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 13:03:53 +0900
JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2002 13:52:58 -0700,
Michael Hunter [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[4 people's opinions about ip6r0_addr]
(correct me if I'm wrong or miss someone.)
That is as I read it.
[...]
[...]
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
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.
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:
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
(Sorry for the delayed response)
On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 15:29:42 -0700,
Michael Hunter [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
It would be easier to use if a c99 flexible array member was the last
element:
/* Type 0 Routing header */
struct ip6_rthdr0 {
uint8_t ip6r0_nxt; /*
In 2292bis the version 0 routing header is specified in section 2.1.2
as
/* Type 0 Routing header */
struct ip6_rthdr0 {
uint8_t ip6r0_nxt; /* next header */
uint8_t ip6r0_len; /* length in units of 8 octets */
uint8_t ip6r0_type; /*
