On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 09:19:15AM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
> Router alert option on a hop-by-hop header means that every router on
> the path should process the option.
I think I understand what you mean by "process the option", but it is
a little ambiguous.
The abstract of RFC2711 says:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007, Andrew McDonald wrote:
For why you don't want to packets to be forwarded, consider a simple
example that applies to something like RSVP:
- packet hits router, identified as potentially interesting from router
alert option
- packet passed to user space, confirmed as really int
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 fr
Hello Andrew,
> 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.
Hmmm -- somehow
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' perspective,
unacceptible) behaviour that IMHO should be fixed.
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 reading
