Subject: Re: Changing the PHY status reporting
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Christos Zoulas <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 02/19/2006 19:47:50
In article <20060219184824.GA997@nikita>,
Liam J. Foy <email@example.com> wrote:
>On 19:06, Sun 19 Feb 06, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>> OK, what do you want to do instead?
>> We have three options:
>> (1) Leave out CARP. Screw all those who want to use and/or need to use
>> (2) Use the same protocol number and just ignore IANA. As long as you
>> don't have some weired configuration, both stacks should be able to drop
>> the packets they are not interested in.
>> (3) Use a different protocol number. This screws up interoperability
>> with other CARP implementations. Not that a big deal, but should be
>> mentioned. Doesn't answer the question which protocol number should be
>> used instead. Any suggestions?
>> For me, (1) is not an option since it shows an inacceptable attitude. I
>> have no problem with (3), maybe even making it options-al to choose
>> OpenBSD's number.
>I agree with Joerg here. We could make it so the user can choose an
Just make it a sysctl :-) Then the user can choose...