On Aug 17, 10:16am, r...@marples.name (Roy Marples) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: route(8) and old messages
| On 17/08/2018 09:36, Christos Zoulas wrote:
| > | If there is anything better we can do long term, I'm sure out of ideas
| > | right now.
| >
| > Looks like the way that we
On 17/08/2018 09:36, Christos Zoulas wrote:
| If there is anything better we can do long term, I'm sure out of ideas
| right now.
Looks like the way that we are evolving the routing socket API is very
expensive and error prone. If we designed the individual messages differently
(so that they cou
On Aug 16, 7:01pm, r...@marples.name (Roy Marples) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: route(8) and old messages
| On 16/08/2018 13:08, Christos Zoulas wrote:
| > I think that it is time to re-think how the routing socket works. Having
| > each program and the kernel deal with sending and recei
On 16/08/2018 13:08, Christos Zoulas wrote:
I think that it is time to re-think how the routing socket works. Having
each program and the kernel deal with sending and receing all versions of
all messages is wasteful and painful to maintain. In the short term we
should fix things to use a message
In article ,
Roy Marples wrote:
>Hi
>
>So I just fixed an issue where RTM_ONEWADDR was recieved by route(8) and
>it tried to parse it as a route message rather than an address message.
>
>My question is this - should the `route monitor` command discard old
>message types or are they somehow imp
Date:Tue, 14 Aug 2018 22:01:27 +0100
From:Roy Marples
Message-ID:
| I'm tempted to add code to exlcude all old messages so that line isn't
| even printed. Opinions?
Not a good idea, whether they are printed as "unknown message"
(or similar) as now, or whether t
Hi
So I just fixed an issue where RTM_ONEWADDR was recieved by route(8) and
it tried to parse it as a route message rather than an address message.
My question is this - should the `route monitor` command discard old
message types or are they somehow important to someone?
For reference the
