David Miller wrote:
> From: Markku Savela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > I think that is worse than allow a new driver to provide a simple
> > service function which maps IPv4/6 multicast address into link layer
> > address, when asked.
>
> The problem is that this mapping isn't so simple for several
>
> In current architecture, you have to patch kernel IPv6 and IPv4
> protocols when you add new link layer that they don't recognize.
Which is right, because the IP layer is the place which knows how to
map IP addresses to link layer addresses.
IP must know its link layer. E.g. it needs a way to
In current architecture, you have to patch kernel IPv6 and IPv4
protocols when you add new link layer that they don't recognize.
Which is right, because the IP layer is the place which knows how to
map IP addresses to link layer addresses.
IP must know its link layer. E.g. it needs a way to
David Miller wrote:
From: Markku Savela [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think that is worse than allow a new driver to provide a simple
service function which maps IPv4/6 multicast address into link layer
address, when asked.
The problem is that this mapping isn't so simple for several
link layer
From: Markku Savela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 18:45:03 +0200
> I think that is worse than allow a new driver to provide a simple
> service function which maps IPv4/6 multicast address into link layer
> address, when asked.
The problem is that this mapping isn't so simple for
>
> > This is a pity, because it would be so easy to make the both stacks
> > totally independent of the actual link layers. It only needs one (or
> > two) new function pointer in net_device. This function should do the
> > conversion from IPv4/IPv6 address into corresponding hardware
> >
> This is a pity, because it would be so easy to make the both stacks
> totally independent of the actual link layers. It only needs one (or
> two) new function pointer in net_device. This function should do the
> conversion from IPv4/IPv6 address into corresponding hardware
> multicast/broadcast
This is a pity, because it would be so easy to make the both stacks
totally independent of the actual link layers. It only needs one (or
two) new function pointer in net_device. This function should do the
conversion from IPv4/IPv6 address into corresponding hardware
multicast/broadcast
This is a pity, because it would be so easy to make the both stacks
totally independent of the actual link layers. It only needs one (or
two) new function pointer in net_device. This function should do the
conversion from IPv4/IPv6 address into corresponding hardware
From: Markku Savela [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 18:45:03 +0200
I think that is worse than allow a new driver to provide a simple
service function which maps IPv4/6 multicast address into link layer
address, when asked.
The problem is that this mapping isn't so simple for several
From: Neil Horman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 08:47:06 -0500
> patches welcome :)
And it's a non-trivial task. The semantics and way in which
link level encapsulation is done is not straight-forward
on some devices.
So the hooks either have to be too generic, or too specific
to
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 01:49:47PM +0200, Markku Savela wrote:
> The IPv6 and IPv4 both seem to be rather akwardly hardcoded to support
> only link layers they know.
>
> This is a pity, because it would be so easy to make the both stacks
> totally independent of the actual link layers. It only
The IPv6 and IPv4 both seem to be rather akwardly hardcoded to support
only link layers they know.
This is a pity, because it would be so easy to make the both stacks
totally independent of the actual link layers. It only needs one (or
two) new function pointer in net_device. This function should
The IPv6 and IPv4 both seem to be rather akwardly hardcoded to support
only link layers they know.
This is a pity, because it would be so easy to make the both stacks
totally independent of the actual link layers. It only needs one (or
two) new function pointer in net_device. This function should
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 01:49:47PM +0200, Markku Savela wrote:
The IPv6 and IPv4 both seem to be rather akwardly hardcoded to support
only link layers they know.
This is a pity, because it would be so easy to make the both stacks
totally independent of the actual link layers. It only needs
From: Neil Horman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 08:47:06 -0500
patches welcome :)
And it's a non-trivial task. The semantics and way in which
link level encapsulation is done is not straight-forward
on some devices.
So the hooks either have to be too generic, or too specific
to be
16 matches
Mail list logo
