From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261646AbVGZIvP (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Jul 2005 04:51:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261574AbVGZIvO (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Jul 2005 04:51:14 -0400 Received: from ganesha.gnumonks.org ([213.95.27.120]:42893 "EHLO ganesha.gnumonks.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261629AbVGZIvJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Jul 2005 04:51:09 -0400 Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 04:45:41 -0400 From: Harald Welte To: Evgeniy Polyakov Cc: Eric Leblond , Patrick McHardy , Andrew Morton , netdev@vger.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Netlink connector Message-ID: <20050726084541.GH7925@rama> Mail-Followup-To: Harald Welte , Evgeniy Polyakov , Eric Leblond , Patrick McHardy , Andrew Morton , netdev@vger.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20050723125427.GA11177@rama> <20050723091455.GA12015@2ka.mipt.ru> <20050724.191756.105797967.davem@davemloft.net> <20050725070603.GA28023@2ka.mipt.ru> <42E4F800.1010908@trash.net> <1122302623.29940.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050725193351.GB30567@2ka.mipt.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="IuhbYIxU28t+Kd57" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050725193351.GB30567@2ka.mipt.ru> User-Agent: mutt-ng devel-20050619 (Debian) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --IuhbYIxU28t+Kd57 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 11:33:51PM +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: > Netlink is transport protocol - no need to add complexity into it,=20 > it must be as simple as possible and thus extensible. yes. but when you run into a serious addressing shortage (like the internet does with ipv4), you develop something that provides more addresses (such as ipv6). That's why support for more groups than 32 (per family) is something that should be put in the netlink protocol. I totally agree that we need a higher-level api on top of that, in order to hide the details of the networking stack for those not interested in it. --=20 - Harald Welte http://netfilter.org/ =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D "Fragmentation is like classful addressing -- an interesting early architectural error that shows how much experimentation was going on while IP was being designed." -- Paul Vixie --IuhbYIxU28t+Kd57 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD4DBQFC5fg1XaXGVTD0i/8RArphAJ9n8AMiYjcDTDkqHzPOWoz3hxPSrACXTdkM 3dK9CwuPtTghvc9QWV4A9g== =mP2X -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --IuhbYIxU28t+Kd57--