Re: multiple neighbour cache tables for AF_INET

On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 07:46:05AM +0900, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / ?$B5HF#1QL@ wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Sat, 29 Jan 2005 09:19:49 +1100), Herbert > Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says: > > > IMHO you need to give the user a way to specify which table they want > > to operate on. If they do

Re: multiple neighbour cache tables for AF_INET

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Sat, 29 Jan 2005 09:19:49 +1100), Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says: > IMHO you need to give the user a way to specify which table they want > to operate on. If they don't specify one, then the current behaviour > of choosing the first table found is reasonbl

Re: multiple neighbour cache tables for AF_INET

Wilfried Weissmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The kernels 2.4.28+ and 2.6.9+ with IPv4 and ATM-CLIP enabled have bugs in > the neighbour cache code. neigh_delete() and neigh_add() only work properly > if one cache table per address family exist. After ATM-CLIP installed a > second cache table

multiple neighbour cache tables for AF_INET

Hi, The kernels 2.4.28+ and 2.6.9+ with IPv4 and ATM-CLIP enabled have bugs in the neighbour cache code. neigh_delete() and neigh_add() only work properly if one cache table per address family exist. After ATM-CLIP installed a second cache table for AF_INET, neigh_delete() and neigh_add() only exa