From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / =?iso-2022-jp?B?GyRCNUhGIzFRTEAbKEI=?= Subject: Re: [RFC][IPv6] Export userland ND options through netlink (RDNSS support) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 20:42:40 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <20071001.204240.07591824.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> References: <20070929174720.GA21678@via.ecp.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org To: linkfanel@yahoo.fr Return-path: Received: from yue.linux-ipv6.org ([203.178.140.15]:51227 "EHLO yue.st-paulia.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750912AbXJALk4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Oct 2007 07:40:56 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20070929174720.GA21678@via.ecp.fr> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Hello. In article <20070929174720.GA21678@via.ecp.fr> (at Sat, 29 Sep 2007 19:47:20 +0200), Pierre Ynard says: > As discussed before, this patch provides userland with a way to access > relevant options in Router Advertisements, after they are processed and > validated by the kernel. Extra options are processed in a generic way; > this patch only exports RDNSS options described in RFC5006, but support > to control which options are exported could be easily added. I basically like this approach at first sight. > which implies that a userland daemon processing RDNSS options needs a > way to associate the option to the router that sent it, and fetch its > lifetime. This kind of information could be included in a header in the > rtnetlink message (in this version of the patch there is none). > diff --git a/include/linux/rtnetlink.h b/include/linux/rtnetlink.h > index dff3192..f69d415 100644 > --- a/include/linux/rtnetlink.h > +++ b/include/linux/rtnetlink.h > @@ -97,6 +97,9 @@ enum { > RTM_SETNEIGHTBL, > #define RTM_SETNEIGHTBL RTM_SETNEIGHTBL > > + RTM_NEWNDUSEROPT = 68, > +#define RTM_NEWNDUSEROPT RTM_NEWNDUSEROPT > + > __RTM_MAX, Does this imply that we could extend (or reuse) this for all of NS/NA/RS/RA/Redirect messages? I think you need to include the code, type and basic semantics of the message. If this is only for RA, we should say "RTM_NEWRAUSEROPT" or something. Regards, --yoshfuji