From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Varun Chandramohan Subject: Re: [PATCH] Age Entry For IPv4 Route Table Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:28:37 +0530 Message-ID: <467F75AD.1090004@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20070625102838.9d1fee20.varunc@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20070625.141451.21870598.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> <467F50E3.2050405@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20070625.003208.69400937.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, sri@us.ibm.com, dlstevens@us.ibm.com, varuncha@in.ibm.com To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from e5.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.145]:35396 "EHLO e5.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751122AbXFYH64 (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Jun 2007 03:58:56 -0400 Received: from d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (d01relay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.236]) by e5.ny.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l5P7wuvs024429 for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2007 03:58:56 -0400 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (d01av03.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.217]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.3) with ESMTP id l5P7wurE488280 for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2007 03:58:56 -0400 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av03.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l5P7wtee028858 for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2007 03:58:55 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20070625.003208.69400937.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org David Miller wrote: > From: Varun Chandramohan > Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 10:51:39 +0530 > > =20 >> YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / =EF=BF=BD=EF=BF=BD=EF=BF=BD=EF=BF=BD=EF=BF=BD=EF= =BF=BD=EF=BF=BD=EF=BF=BD=EF=BF=BD=EF=BF=BD=EF=BF=BD=EF=BF=BD wrote: >> =20 >>> In article <20070625102838.9d1fee20.varunc@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (at = Mon, 25 Jun 2007 10:28:38 +0530), Varun Chandramohan says: >>> >>> =20 >>> =20 >>>> According to the RFC 4292 (IP Forwarding Table MIB) there is a nee= d for an age entry for all the routes in the routing table. The entry i= n the RFC is inetCidrRouteAge and oid is inetCidrRouteAge.1.10. >>>> Many snmp application require this age entry. So iam adding the ag= e field in the routing table and providing >>>> the interface for this value via /proc/net/route. >>>> =20 >>>> =20 >>> I'm not in favor of adding new field(s) to /proc/net/route. >>> >>> =20 >>> =20 >> Do you think it will break any user level functionality? I have test= ed >> with netstat, route and net-snmp which reads from the same /proc >> interface. They seem to work fine. >> =20 > > You can't change procfs file output format, someone's shell scripts > or whatever out there will break. Just testing some common packages > isn't a way to be able to change procfs file output, it's a user > exported API and just like system calls you cannot change them. > > =20 Hi Dave, =20 Ok i understand. But can you suggest anyother way to do the abo= ve? Regards, Varun