Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 19 Mar 2003 19:47:35 -0800 (PST) | Subject | Re: [PATCH] anycast support for IPv6, updated to 2.5.44 | From | "David S. Miller" <> |
| |
From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <yoshfuji@wide.ad.jp> Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:44:28 +0900 (JST)
In article <20030319.192331.95884882.davem@redhat.com> (at Wed, 19 Mar 2003 19:23:31 -0800 (PST)), "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com> says:
> Please propose alternative API, or do you suggest not > to export this facility to user at all? I like to assign address like unicast (using ioctl and rtnetlink (RTN_ANYCAST)). We suggest you not exporting this facilicy until finishing new API (And, another API would be standardized; This is another reason why I am against exporting that API for now.)
I think anycast addresses are more like multicast than unicast. Do you agree about this?
But here is what really matters, does the advanced IPV6 socket API say anything about a user API for anycast? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |