in order to fulfil its purpose.
I hope that helps to clarify things.
--
Andrew McDonald
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.mcdonald.org.uk/andrew/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 08:51:16AM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
Took off linux-man from cc:,
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007, Andrew McDonald wrote:
+The tapped packets are not forwarded by the kernel, it is the
+user's responsibility to send them out again.
This is probably incompliant (and from users
Hi,
I discovered that the current description of the IPV6_ROUTER_ALERT
sockopt in ipv6.7 is significantly wrong. A patch to fix the
description is below. I sent a version of this earlier in the year to
[EMAIL PROTECTED], but nothing happened with it at the time.
The correction is based on
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 08:12:58PM -0400, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / ?$B5HF#1QL@ wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] (at Thu, 21 Jul 2005 21:44:43 +0100), Andrew
McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] says:
I guess the fix would be a matter of changing:
if (sk ra-sel == sel) {
to:
if (sk ra
Hi,
I've noticed a difference between the IPv4 and IPv6 router alert
handling, which I think constitutes a bug.
For IPv4, you can bind a socket to an interface. If you use the
IP_ROUTER_ALERT sockopt then packets with router alert options are only
delivered to raw sockets bound to the incoming
