On (11/02/07 16:10), Yu Xiangning wrote: > > If there are two interfaces in the system and it happens to be the first > one is with IPIF_POINTTOPOINT and the second one without > IPIF_UNNUMBERED, also suppose the first one's ipif_pp_dst_addr is equal > to the second one's ipif_lcl_addr (this can happen if one of the > interface is DOWN), the above code will result in different behavior > from what it does today. i.e. Nevada matches the second one while the > proposed code matches the first one. > > I'm not sure the correct behavior under this situation. If either is OK > then it's fine we can eliminate twice lookups. >
Yes- after further discussions, I decided to leave the existing behavior unchanged, since it's not clear what exactly was intended here.. --Sowmini _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
