From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S269828AbTGKIch (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jul 2003 04:32:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S269873AbTGKIcg (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jul 2003 04:32:36 -0400 Received: from netcore.fi ([193.94.160.1]:40714 "EHLO netcore.fi") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S269828AbTGKIb1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jul 2003 04:31:27 -0400 Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 11:46:00 +0300 (EEST) From: Pekka Savola To: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / =?iso-2022-jp?B?GyRCNUhGIzFRTEAbKEI=?= cc: mika.liljeberg@welho.com, , , Subject: Re: 2.4.21+ - IPv6 over IPv4 tunneling b0rked In-Reply-To: <20030711.143926.599349332.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / [iso-2022-jp] 吉藤英明 wrote: > In article (at Fri, 11 Jul 2003 08:22:39 +0300 (EEST)), Pekka Savola says: > > > (It might be nice to have configurable /proc option on whether to enable > > the subnet router anycast address at all, but that's also a different > > story..) > > I don't like this > while I would be ok to have configuration option > not to support anycast. With "not to support anycast" you probably meant "not to support subnet-router anycast address [automatically, in the kernel, as now]" ? These are entirely different things. (Note that if there's a user-level API for setting anycast addresses, one could kick the subnet-router anycast address out of the kernel too. Whether that's desirable is another thing.) -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings