Re: [IGMPv3/MLDv2] Problem using host implementation on 2.6.0-test1

From: David S. Miller (davem@redhat.com)
Date: Fri Jul 25 2003 - 08:25:34 EST


On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 15:15:55 +0200 (MEST)
Hitoshi Asaeda <Hitoshi.Asaeda@sophia.inria.fr> wrote:

> > > But anyway, why e.g. struct ip_mreq_source defines each data to __u32
> > > type, not struct in_addr? The MSF I-D explicitly mentions they are
> > > struct in_addr.
>
> This question is still opened.

The MSF I-D are going to define the application interface to be
via the C library, therefore the kernel is free to use whatever
kernel side interface for IGMPv3/MLDv2 interfaces it so chooses.

>From the start, using socket options to implement these things
are against what the MSF I-D specified anyways. A long flame
war about using socket options is what led the MSF I-D to finally
decide that defining a kernel API for this was not the best of
ideas and that a C-library based interface was more prudent.

So there is no reason we have to use any particular type for the
IGMPv3/MLDv2 interfaces provided by the kernel, we can use whatever
types we want.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 31 2003 - 22:00:01 EST