Re: RTM_NEWNEIGH

[David Young <dyoung%pobox.com@localhost>]

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 12:57:58PM -0500, Greg Troxel wrote:
> 
> Roy Marples <roy%marples.name@localhost> writes:
> 
> > dhcpcd polls SIOCGNBRINFO_IN6 every second for every IPv6 router it
> > knows about to test neighbour reach-ability.
> > This isn't exactly optimal, hello battery drain.
> >
> > Attached is a patch to add RTM_NEWNEIGH so that userland can react to
> > Neighbour Discovery changes, similar to the Linux equivalent.
> > It's designed to be protocol agnostic, (ie could be used for ARP as
> > well).
> > Currently, it only raises RTM_NEWNEIGH on IPv6 neighbour state and
> > flag (is it a router?) changes.
> > There is little point in generating RTM_DELNEIGH or RTM_GETNEIGH as
> > Linux does because our current
> > implementation sends equivalent messages via RTM_DELETE or RTM_CHANGE.
> 
> Why doesn't RTM_ADD get sent for ND entries in the table?  I don't see
> why a new message is needed.  Or is this about some later state
> transition from them just being added, because the later transition is
> what matters.

I'd also like to know why RTM_ADD isn't sent for the new neighbors.

Dave

-- 
David Young
dyoung%pobox.com@localhost    Urbana, IL    (217) 721-9981