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/
next prev parent 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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).