On Mon, 14 May 2001 kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru wrote:
> Hello!
>
> > 2) no significant restrictions (==this)
>
> When user asks to create some object, the only required thing
> of any reasonable interface is to return an error when the object
> is not added.
Please don't get stuck on that -- It wasn't the point ;-).
I pointed out KAME (and this seems to apply to IPv4 stack too) because it
would not add the same address twice. The fact that it doesn't print out
an error message was just some wondering on the side; irrelevant from the
point of view discussed here (this duplicate error might have to special
cased in userland tools somehow though).
The command can be made print out the error message if that's what's
deemed important.
I guess BSD people have for some reason thought returning 0 on SIOCAIFADDR
for duplicates is ok. Or perhaps it's a bug. Investigating.
> KAME's one is broken, ours is _one_ of right ones.
I fail to see what the other right ones (ones that will actually add
an address too) are. But that's not important. :-)
Cc: please.
-- Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall" Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 23 2001 - 21:00:27 EST