Re: ioctl(... TUNSLMODE ...)

2000-01-20 Thread Brian Somers
> * Brian Somers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000120 15:30] wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I know this is a while in coming, but now that I'm looking at getting > > ppp(8) to talk IPv6 (with the help of some KAME patches), I've looked > > at how TUNSLMODE is implemented... it doesn't look good to me. > > > >

Re: ioctl(... TUNSLMODE ...)

2000-01-20 Thread Alfred Perlstein
* Brian Somers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000120 15:30] wrote: > Hi, > > I know this is a while in coming, but now that I'm looking at getting > ppp(8) to talk IPv6 (with the help of some KAME patches), I've looked > at how TUNSLMODE is implemented... it doesn't look good to me. > > What's the ratio

ioctl(... TUNSLMODE ...)

2000-01-20 Thread Brian Somers
Hi, I know this is a while in coming, but now that I'm looking at getting ppp(8) to talk IPv6 (with the help of some KAME patches), I've looked at how TUNSLMODE is implemented... it doesn't look good to me. What's the rationale behind stuffing the entire sockaddr in front of the packet ? AFA