Subject: Re: Changing the PHY status reporting
To: Christos Zoulas <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Liam J. Foy <email@example.com>
Date: 02/19/2006 19:55:20
On 19:47, Sun 19 Feb 06, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> In article <20060219184824.GA997@nikita>,
> Liam J. Foy <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >On 19:06, Sun 19 Feb 06, email@example.com 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
> >> it.
> >> (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
> >appropiate number.
> Just make it a sysctl :-) Then the user can choose...
Yep, I've discussed that idea with Jeff.
Liam J. Foy