Re: RTM_NEWNEIGH

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

On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 03:12:57PM -0500, Greg Troxel wrote:
> 
> Roy Marples <roy%marples.name@localhost> writes:
> 
> > On 14/12/2014 22:23, David Young wrote:
> >> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 12:57:58PM -0500, Greg Troxel wrote:
> >>> 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.
> >
> > Because there is no code to notify userland!
> 
> What I meant was "why don't you send RTM_ADD instead of creating a new
> message type".  Sorry if that was unclear.

That's what I meant, too.  Sorry for being ambiguous!

> Roy wrote:
> > Here is a new patch where all route changes are notified to userland:
> >   *  RTM_ADD for new neighbour cache entry
> >   *  RTM_CHANGE for an updated cache entry
> >   *  RTM_DEL for a deleted neighbour cache entry

Sounds good to me.

Dave

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