Peter Memishian wrote:
While I have no objection to introducing new IFF_* flags, we must assume
that no applications will bother to concern themselves with them.
Sure.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we already know that Quagga doesn't
look at IFF_UP on addresses. (It just looks at bge0, not at bge0:1 etc)
Along those lines, there may be more application capture by having IFF_UP
mean "address is usable" and introducing a new flag such as "IFF_ADMUP" to
indicate the address is administratively up (which is irrelevant to most
applications, which instead just want to know whether an address they
found via SIOCG[L]IFCONF is usable).
Given that applications don't look at the flags on bge0:1, IFF_UP
doesn't seem to be useful there. IFF_ADMUP wouldn't be any more usable.
If we move to the BSD notion of address flags then we have a higher
chance of applications paying attention. And BSD doesn't have an UP flag
for addresses.
Erik
_______________________________________________
networking-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
