On Wednesday 17 November 2004 23:02, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 07:50:32PM +0300, Vladimir Grebenschikov wrote:
> > Ð ÑÑ, 11/11/2004 Ð 21:24 +0100, Max Laier ÐÐÑÐÑ:
> > > All,
> > >
> > > I know I have sent this a couple of times before, but never got
> > > anywhere. This time
On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 07:50:32PM +0300, Vladimir Grebenschikov wrote:
> В чт, 11/11/2004 в 21:24 +0100, Max Laier пишет:
> > All,
> >
> > I know I have sent this a couple of times before, but never got anywhere.
> > This
> > time I am set to commit!
> >
> > The attached patch (http://people.
В чт, 11/11/2004 в 21:24 +0100, Max Laier пишет:
> All,
>
> I know I have sent this a couple of times before, but never got anywhere.
> This
> time I am set to commit!
>
> The attached patch (http://people.freebsd.org/~mlaier/in.c.patch) derived
> from
> WIDE via OpenBSD in.c, rev 1.21 impro
On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 10:30:14AM +0200, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> Hi Max,
>
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 09:24:05PM +0100, Max Laier wrote:
> > I know I have sent this a couple of times before, but never got anywhere.
> > This
> > time I am set to commit!
> >
> Hey, you did it! ;)
>
> > The atta
On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 01:16:31AM +0100, Max Laier wrote:
> On Thursday 11 November 2004 22:55, Andrea Campi wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 09:24:05PM +0100, Max Laier wrote:
> > > The attached patch (http://people.freebsd.org/~mlaier/in.c.patch) derived
> > > from WIDE via OpenBSD in.c, rev 1
Hi Max,
On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 09:24:05PM +0100, Max Laier wrote:
> I know I have sent this a couple of times before, but never got anywhere.
> This
> time I am set to commit!
>
Hey, you did it! ;)
> The attached patch (http://people.freebsd.org/~mlaier/in.c.patch) derived
> from
> WIDE vi
On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 07:13:18PM -0800, Brooks Davis wrote:
> I have no objections so this change. Does this help or hurt our quest
> to be able to usefully bind to 0.0.0.0? It would be really nice if we
> could eventually do this so we could stop running bpf on 90+% of all
> machines just so w
On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 09:24:05PM +0100, Max Laier wrote:
> All,
>
> I know I have sent this a couple of times before, but never got anywhere.
> This
> time I am set to commit!
>
> The attached patch (http://people.freebsd.org/~mlaier/in.c.patch) derived
> from
> WIDE via OpenBSD in.c, rev 1
On Thursday 11 November 2004 22:55, Andrea Campi wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 09:24:05PM +0100, Max Laier wrote:
> > The attached patch (http://people.freebsd.org/~mlaier/in.c.patch) derived
> > from WIDE via OpenBSD in.c, rev 1.21 improves the handling of automatic
> > prefix routes.
>
> Sound
On Thursday 11 November 2004 22:29, Ulrich Spoerlein wrote:
> On Thu, 11.11.2004 at 21:24:05 +0100, Max Laier wrote:
> > The patch allows to add more than on IPv4 address with the same prefix.
> > In the case that there is a route already, we leave it alone and add the
> > new address without the I
On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 09:24:05PM +0100, Max Laier wrote:
> The attached patch (http://people.freebsd.org/~mlaier/in.c.patch) derived
> from
> WIDE via OpenBSD in.c, rev 1.21 improves the handling of automatic prefix
> routes.
Sounds like a very useful change indeed.
One comment though:
> @@
On Thu, 11.11.2004 at 21:24:05 +0100, Max Laier wrote:
> The patch allows to add more than on IPv4 address with the same prefix. In
> the
> case that there is a route already, we leave it alone and add the new address
> without the IFA_ROUTE flag. When we remove an address later on, that has a
All,
I know I have sent this a couple of times before, but never got anywhere. This
time I am set to commit!
The attached patch (http://people.freebsd.org/~mlaier/in.c.patch) derived from
WIDE via OpenBSD in.c, rev 1.21 improves the handling of automatic prefix
routes.
Right now you can't hav
13 matches
Mail list logo
