RTF_CLONING vs RTF_PRCLONING
From: Garrett Wollman (wollman_at_khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu)
Date: 07/28/03
- Previous message: Vincent Jardin: "RTF_CLONING vs RTF_PRCLONING"
- In reply to: Vincent Jardin: "RTF_CLONING vs RTF_PRCLONING"
- Next in thread: Bruce M Simpson: "Re: RTF_CLONING vs RTF_PRCLONING"
- Reply: Bruce M Simpson: "Re: RTF_CLONING vs RTF_PRCLONING"
- Reply: Ruslan Ermilov: "Re: RTF_CLONING vs RTF_PRCLONING"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 17:51:28 -0400 (EDT) To: Vincent Jardin <vjardin@wanadoo.fr>
<<On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 23:45:28 +0200, Vincent Jardin <vjardin@wanadoo.fr> said:
> I agree, then... Isn't it already the purpose of RTF_CLONING ?
> When should RTF_PRCLONIG be set ?
RTF_PRCLONING is set automatically by the protocol to cause host
routes to be generated on every unique lookup.
RTF_CLONING is set when the route is added (either manually, or
automatically for interface routes) to indicate that a more specific
route (possibly a host route) needs to be generated on every unique
lookup.
RTF_XRESOLVE is set when the target of the newly cloned route is not
known by the kernel and must be set up by a user process. I'm not
sure if anything ever used this, although I guess it could be used to
implement ISIS.
-GAWollman
_______________________________________________
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
- Previous message: Vincent Jardin: "RTF_CLONING vs RTF_PRCLONING"
- In reply to: Vincent Jardin: "RTF_CLONING vs RTF_PRCLONING"
- Next in thread: Bruce M Simpson: "Re: RTF_CLONING vs RTF_PRCLONING"
- Reply: Bruce M Simpson: "Re: RTF_CLONING vs RTF_PRCLONING"
- Reply: Ruslan Ermilov: "Re: RTF_CLONING vs RTF_PRCLONING"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|