Hi Hasso: Thanks for comment, :), I have send email too fast just now, I now get what's you mean and will remove routing header type 0 from my codes and document, and see RFC5095 for more detail. Thanks for instruction. Best wishes! Huang Dashu
On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 3:24 AM, Hasso Tepper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dashu Huang wrote: >> Hi All: >> >> This patch is for the Google summer code project of "RFC3542 support >> on DragonFlyBSD", for more detail please see the document "The Design >> and implementation of RFC3542 support on DragonFly BSD.pdf" in >> http://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/~dhuang2/rfc3542/. > > Good work. I'm sure there are guys making more comments and more detailed > review, but at first I have to kick myself not catching it earlier in the > progress - routing header type 0 is really obsolete - see RFC5095 3: > "IPv6 implementations are no longer required to implement RH0 in any > way.". Therefore most of code handling RH0 can be just removed. There is > just no point to preserve the code for compatibility with RFC2292. > > It does not mean that inet6_rth_*() functions could be removed - these > have to stay as stubs (as they were AFAIK) and wait for code to handle > type2 headers. You should be also careful not breaking whole world via > removing members from structures, but the code handling these has to go > (as most of rthdr.c in the kernel and related code in the ping6 for > example). > > > PS. Note that in vacation and not able to participate in discussion much, > but I hope there are others who have opinion regarding the project :). > > -- > Hasso Tepper >
