On Tue, 2004-05-18 at 17:21, Harti Brandt wrote: > On Tue, 18 May 2004, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > > LR>On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 02:00:28PM +0100, Doug Rabson wrote: > LR>> On Tue, 2004-05-18 at 09:48, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > LR>> > I will try to remove as many assumptions as possible. > LR>> > thanks for the feedback. > LR>> > LR>> I think that in your prototype, the only assumption was in struct > LR>> llentry. I would suggest defining it as something like: > LR> > LR>to be really flexible, both l3_addr and ll_addr should be > LR>variable size (v4,v6,v8 over 802.x,firewire,appletalk,snail-mail), > LR>then things rapidly become confusing and inefficient. > LR>I would like to keep the ipv4 over ethernet case simple and quick, even > LR>if this means replicating the code for the generic case (and this > LR>is one of the reasons i have stalled a bit on this code -- i want > LR>to make up my mind on what is a reasonable approaxch). > > The most common use of that table is to have an l3_addr and search the > ll_addr, right? In that case making ll_addr variable shouldn't have a > measurable influence on speed. Variable l3_addr could be different though.
Well it seems to me that IPv6 neighbour discovery is different enough from ARP that it makes sense to have IPv4-specialised ARP and IPv6-specialised ND. The only other variable is the size of the LL address and that doesn't add any significant complexity since its just moved around with bcopy. _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
