On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 7:55 AM David Ahern <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 4/22/19 6:33 AM, Tom Herbert wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, Apr 21, 2019, 11:43 PM David Ahern <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > On 4/19/19 4:36 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: > > > Add a netlink interface to manage the TX TLV parameters. Managed > > > parameters include those for validating and sending TLVs being sent > > > such as alignment, TLV ordering, length limits, etc. > > > > > > > Why generic netlink for managing IPv6 extensions? > > > > > > Hi David, > > > > It allows control over permissions to use specific options. Also, admin > > can add TLVs in the system without requiring specific kernel support. > > The latter in combination with datagram interfaces made bringing up Path > > MTU option at IETF hackathon a breeze (much easier time than FreeBSD > > guys were having :-) ). > > > > Hi Tom: I was asking why can't this be done with rtnetlink? How does the > genl interface make this easier / better?
David, Looking at the genl How-to, it seems like genl is appropriate. We can make family for IPv6 and eventually IPv4. Registeration is straight forward and it's extensible if we need new parameters (without having to touch rtnetlink.h). Is there are particular reason why you think rtnetlink would be more appropriate? Thanks, Tom
