netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] IPv6: Fix Prefix Length of Link-local Addresses

To: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] IPv6: Fix Prefix Length of Link-local Addresses
From: Derek Fawcus <dfawcus@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 00:36:28 +0100
Cc: sekiya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, usagi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20021009.162438.82081593.davem@xxxxxxxxxx>; from davem@xxxxxxxxxx on Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 04:24:38PM -0700
References: <20021009234421.J29133@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20021009.161414.63434223.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <20021010002902.A3803@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20021009.162438.82081593.davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 04:24:38PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
>    From: Derek Fawcus <dfawcus@xxxxxxxxx>
>    Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 00:29:02 +0100
> 
>    There are areas where the TAHI tests expect a certain behaviour
>    when more than one behaviour is acceptable.
> 
> Great, that's what I was trying to find out.
> 
> Now I just need to know if this link-local prefix case
> is one such issue. :-)

That I can't answer,  since I've not had that one specifically thrown at
me as a test failure condition.

However,  in a previous email I did indicate the two different ICMPv6
errors that could be generated.  So I guess it's a case of see if this
was a TAHI failure,  and if so then is it that TAHI want's to get a
'no route to destination' when 'address unreachable' should suffice.

DF


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>