On 06/05/16(Fri) 21:42, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
> 
> Also motivated by http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=146239072929264&w=2
> 
> RFC4191 defines route preference flags not only in Route Information
> options, but also in Router Advertisement messages.  Let's try to make
> this clear.  Also, try to document the possible values in a slightly
> more useful way...
> 
> Comments / oks?

I wish this config file could be sane and use keywords just like our
other deamons.  I use rtadvd for debugging purpose and I find its syntax
horrible.

That said I'm ok with your diff.

> Index: rtadvd.conf.5
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.sbin/rtadvd/rtadvd.conf.5,v
> retrieving revision 1.35
> diff -u -p -p -u -r1.35 rtadvd.conf.5
> --- rtadvd.conf.5     21 Apr 2015 16:32:24 -0000      1.35
> +++ rtadvd.conf.5     6 May 2016 19:25:15 -0000
> @@ -116,6 +116,22 @@ and Bit 6
>  .Li 0x40
>  .Pc
>  means Other stateful configuration flag bit.
> +Bit 4
> +.Po
> +.Li 0x10
> +.Pc
> +and
> +Bit 3
> +.Po
> +.Li 0x08
> +.Pc
> +are used to encode the route preference for the route as follows:
> +.Bl -column "0x08" "High" -offset indent
> +.It 0x08 Ta "High"
> +.It 0x00 Ta "Medium" Pq default
> +.It 0x18 Ta "Low"
> +.El
> +.Pp
>  The default value is 0.
>  .It Cm \&rltime
>  (num) Router lifetime field
> @@ -252,18 +268,7 @@ The default value is 64.
>  .It Cm \&rtflags
>  (str or num) A 8-bit flags field in route information option.
>  Currently only the preference values are defined.
> -The notation is same as that of the raflags field.
> -Bit 4
> -.Po
> -.Li 0x10
> -.Pc
> -and
> -Bit 3
> -.Po
> -.Li 0x08
> -.Pc
> -are used to encode the route preference for the route.
> -The default value is 0x00, i.e., medium preference.
> +The notation for those is same as that of the raflags field.
>  .It Cm \&rtltime
>  (num) route lifetime field in route information option.
>  .Pq unit: seconds .
> 
> -- 
> jca | PGP : 0x1524E7EE / 5135 92C1 AD36 5293 2BDF  DDCC 0DFA 74AE 1524 E7EE
> 

Reply via email to