From: Nicolas DICHTEL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 10:39:12 +0100
> Yes, that's what I mean ;-) It was the same problem for not-connected
> socket in UDP.
Ok, I see. Nicolas, can you resend your patch to me via
private email? Thanks.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
Herbert Xu a écrit :
David S. Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: Nicolas DICHTEL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 12:00:30 +0100
in the same way of this patch, why dst_entry are stored for
RAW socket ? In case of specific IPSec rules for ICMPv6,
xfrm state can be different fo
David S. Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Nicolas DICHTEL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 12:00:30 +0100
>
>> in the same way of this patch, why dst_entry are stored for
>> RAW socket ? In case of specific IPSec rules for ICMPv6,
>> xfrm state can be different for the same de
From: Nicolas DICHTEL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 12:00:30 +0100
> in the same way of this patch, why dst_entry are stored for
> RAW socket ? In case of specific IPSec rules for ICMPv6,
> xfrm state can be different for the same destination.
> Attached, a proposed patch.
We cache t
Hi all,
in the same way of this patch, why dst_entry are stored for
RAW socket ? In case of specific IPSec rules for ICMPv6,
xfrm state can be different for the same destination.
Attached, a proposed patch.
Regards,
Nicolas
[IPV6] Don't store dst_entry for RAW socket
Signed-off-by: Nicolas DIC
