On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 09:19:15AM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
Router alert option on a hop-by-hop header means that every router on
the path should process the option.
I think I understand what you mean by process the option, but it is
a little ambiguous.
The abstract of RFC2711 says:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007, Andrew McDonald wrote:
For why you don't want to packets to be forwarded, consider a simple
example that applies to something like RSVP:
- packet hits router, identified as potentially interesting from router
alert option
- packet passed to user space, confirmed as really
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.
This is probably incompliant (and from
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.
This is probably incompliant (and from users' perspective,
unacceptible) behaviour that IMHO should be fixed.
Hello Andrew,
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.
Hmmm -- somehow
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
