From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Graf Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] decnet: Parse netlink attributes on our own Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 14:27:35 +0000 Message-ID: <20130322142735.GA11368@casper.infradead.org> References: <5b888618a6aebfebf496c91482794a606b3bb094.1363885020.git.tgraf@suug.ch> <1363889099.2707.14.camel@menhir> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-decnet-user@lists.sourceforge.net To: Steven Whitehouse Return-path: Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:59570 "EHLO casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932605Ab3CVO1j (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Mar 2013 10:27:39 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1363889099.2707.14.camel@menhir> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 03/21/13 at 06:04pm, Steven Whitehouse wrote: > You shouldn't need any special hardware to test this. A copy of iproute2 > should be enough as you should be able to use that to create an > interface or two and a route between them, etc. Although DECnet routing > works in a different way to ip routing, the Linux implementation tries > to stick fairly closely to the ip way of doing things whenever it can in > order to share infrastructure. Now that ip has diverged a fair bit over > time that isn't quite as true as it was, but there shouldn't be anything > too surprising in there. Alright, I did some basic testing with iproute2. I do not claim to understand what I did but I ran the following: $ ip -f dnet route add 1.661 dev em1 $ ip -f dnet route list 1.661 dev em1 scope link $ ip -f dnet neigh add 6.662 dev em1 $ ip -f dnet neigh list 6.662 dev em1 lladdr aa:00:04:00:96:1a PERMANENT $ ip -f dnet addr add 1.111 dev em1 $ ip -f dnet addr list 2: em1: mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast state DOWN qlen 1000 dnet 1.111/16 scope global em1