All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de>
To: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>
Cc: netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux1394-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
	David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC:] struct net_device_ops: Add function pointer to fill device specific ndisc information
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 14:15:48 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130121141548.6327224b@stein> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <50FD2EBE.9050608@linux-ipv6.org>

On Jan 21 YOSHIFUJI Hideaki wrote:
> Stefan Richter wrote:
> > On Jan 20 Stephan Gatzka wrote:
> >> On 01/20/2013 07:47 PM, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki wrote:
> >>
> >>> My current position is to change "mac address" to
> >>>
> >>> struct fwnet_hwaddr {
> >>> 	u8	guid[8];
> >>> 	u8	max_rec;
> >>> 	u8	sspd;
> >>> 	u8	fifo[6];
> >>> };
> >>>
> >>
> >> That is something I'm not really convinced of. As Stefan Richter pointed 
> >> out clearly, the fifo address might be different between IPv4 and IPv6 
> >> communication.
> > 
> > If it is of any help, the initial implementation could assume that IPv4
> > unicast_FIFO and IPv6 unicast_FIFO are the same.  RFC 3146 is silent on
> > this topic (which means it can be one way or the other), but from an
> > implementation point of view, using one FIFO offset for both seems quite
> > natural.  Currently the only existing RFC 3146 implementation which is
> > known to us is Mac OS X, and since your tests with OS X 10.6 went well,
> > they obviously use one offset for both protocols.
> > 
> > But if we actually put this assumption into the implementation now, we
> > should make sure that we can easily expand the implementation later in the
> > event that a third implementation comes across which uses separate
> > unicast_FIFOs.
> 
> Well, FIFO for which side?

Our Linux implementation should expose a single unicast_FIFO for
reception of both protocols, just in case that another implementation
expects just this.

For transmission, we should be ready to keep an IP-peer-to-1394-node
mapping with per-protocol unicast_FIFOs, but in my mind it is doubtful
that any such implementation exists (hence we could just stand prepared
to implement it later when proven to be needed -- if this simplifies the
initial implementation notably).

> I do believe sender will not (or say, must not) care if they use
> different FIFO for both protocol or not.
> 
> Assume that peer has FIFO per protocol, one for IPv4 and another for
> IPv6.  ARP advertise FIFO for IPv4 and NDP advertise FIFO for IPv6.
> neighbour subsystem has protocol dependent tables, and two different
> NCEs (neighbour cache entries) will be created.  So, sender will
> correctly get FIFO from NCE for each protocol.

OK.
-- 
Stefan Richter
-=====-===-= ---= =-=-=
http://arcgraph.de/sr/

  reply	other threads:[~2013-01-21 13:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-01-20 17:52 [RFC:] struct net_device_ops: Add function pointer to fill device specific ndisc information Stephan Gatzka
2013-01-20 18:47 ` YOSHIFUJI Hideaki
2013-01-20 21:23   ` Stephan Gatzka
2013-01-21  2:29     ` YOSHIFUJI Hideaki
2013-01-21  6:25       ` Stephan Gatzka
2013-01-21  7:39         ` Stefan Richter
2013-01-21 11:50           ` YOSHIFUJI Hideaki
2013-01-21 19:25           ` Stephan Gatzka
2013-01-21 19:57             ` YOSHIFUJI Hideaki
2013-01-21 21:16               ` Stephan Gatzka
2013-01-27 14:43                 ` Stefan Richter
2013-01-27 17:21                   ` Stephan Gatzka
2013-01-27 18:20                     ` Stephan Gatzka
2013-01-27 18:25                       ` YOSHIFUJI Hideaki
2013-01-27 19:28                     ` YOSHIFUJI Hideaki
2013-01-27 23:26                       ` Stefan Richter
2013-01-21 11:50         ` YOSHIFUJI Hideaki
2013-01-21  8:09     ` Stefan Richter
2013-01-21 12:04       ` YOSHIFUJI Hideaki
2013-01-21 13:15         ` Stefan Richter [this message]
2013-01-21  6:37   ` Stephan Gatzka
2013-01-21 12:16     ` YOSHIFUJI Hideaki
2013-01-20 21:22 ` Waskiewicz Jr, Peter P
2013-01-21  6:17   ` Stephan Gatzka
2013-01-21  8:28     ` Stefan Richter
2013-01-21 12:32       ` YOSHIFUJI Hideaki
2013-01-21 14:15         ` YOSHIFUJI Hideaki

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20130121141548.6327224b@stein \
    --to=stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=linux1394-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.