On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 04:42:41PM -0500, Vlad Yasevich wrote: > Neil Horman wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 03:28:40PM -0500, Vlad Yasevich wrote: > >> Hi Neil > >> > >> Neil Horman wrote: > >>> On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 09:13:31AM +0900, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 wrote: > >>>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Thu, 25 Jan 2007 14:45:00 -0500), > >>>> Neil Horman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says: > >>> > >>> New patch attached with most of your suggestions incorporated. I've a few > >>> comments mixed in for some of the suggestions that I think need further > >>> discussion > >>> > >>>> If optimistic_dad is disabled, flags should be IFA_F_TEMPORARY, > >>>> not IFA_F_TEMPORARY|IFA_F_OPTIMISTIC. > >>>> > >>>> Another idea is to use IFA_F_OPTIMISTIC not > >>>> IFA_F_OPTIMISTIC|IFA_F_TENTATIVE until the DAD has been finished. > >>>> > >>> I'm currently setting the OPTIMISTIC flag in every location that its > >>> possibly > >>> needed, and then clearing it in addrconf_dad_start if that interface is > >>> not > >>> participating in optimistic dad. I do this because the RFC in section 3.1 > >>> indicates that manually configured addresses should not set the > >>> optimistic flag. > >>> If I removed the OPTIMISTIC flag from the locations it gets set in the > >>> patch and > >>> then only set it for participating interfaces in addrconf_dad_start, I > >>> would > >>> need to have some way to tell if the address in question was manually > >>> configured > >>> (to avoid setting it in that case). At present I see no clear way to do > >>> that, > >>> but if you have a suggestion, I'll happily change this around. > >> One suggestiong/question: > >> > >> Instead of clearing the OPTIMISTIC flag in addrconf_dad_start(), wouldn't > >> it be better > >> to simply not set the flag in ipv6_add_addr()? Just mask that flag from > >> the 'flags' > >> argument passed to that function when conditions are right. > >> > > Doh! Sometimes I don't just think straight. Yes, as long as ipv6_add_addr > > is > > only for adding static addresses (which it pretty clearly is), that would > > work > > much better. I'll fix it up and repost on monday. > > > > Don't suppose you have any thoughts on how to solve the "send to default > > router" > > problem, do you? > > > > Still trying to figure how the routing side works. sorry.... > > -vlad I've got your flag changes made, but I'm holding off on reposting for a bit. Dave M. just gave me some advice on how best to handle the default router case. Trying to understand the routing code and integrate that before I repost.
Thanks Neil - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
