Julian Elischer wrote:
I have some thoughts on this.
firstly, while it is interesting to have an arp table (ok LLA table)
on each interface, I'm not sure that it gains you very much.
Unfortunately maintaining a single ARP table is insufficient for
supporting multiple paths within the IPv4 st
Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 05:51:44PM +, Qing Li wrote:
[luigi:]
i agree that the timing is a bit tight for inclusion, especially
because the work dates back to 2004 if not before, and i think Qing
Li took over development at least two years ago - not a great track
record
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 05:51:44PM +, Qing Li wrote:
>
> [luigi:]
> >
> > i agree that the timing is a bit tight for inclusion, especially
> > because the work dates back to 2004 if not before, and i think Qing
> > Li took over development at least two years ago - not a great track
> > rec
>
> i agree that the timing is a bit tight for inclusion, especially
> because the work dates back to 2004 if not before, and i think Qing
> Li took over development at least two years ago - not a great track
> record in terms of dedication to the work. I'd rather not see it
> rushed in :)
>
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 07:15:51PM +0400, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> [moving to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 07:31:18AM -0700, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> L> On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 05:29:55PM +0400, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
...
> L> > Can you please prod me when you have incorporated my sugges
[moving to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 07:31:18AM -0700, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
L> On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 05:29:55PM +0400, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
L> > On Sat, Jun 09, 2007 at 01:10:44AM +, Qing Li wrote:
L> > Q> Please review my new ARP patch and send me your feedbacks.
L> > Q>
