> I wouldn't think setsockopt() would be the right "level" to implement
> the router alert option.

One thing I haven't seen mentioned here is that implementing this
option really means two things.

One is the one that seems to be getting discussed, making NetBSD notice
it when acting as a router.

The other seems to be getting completely ignored, that being making
NetBSD capable of generating the option when sending packets.

For the latter, I think setsockopt is exactly right.

For the former, I'm not at all sure.  I haven't yet had the brain
cycles to think about it enough; I'm not convinced setsockopt is wrong,
but I'm definitely not convinced it's right.

/~\ The ASCII				der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML	       mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B