Re: RTF_CLONING vs RTF_PRCLONING
From: Bruce M Simpson (bms_at_spc.org)
Date: 07/28/03
- Previous message: Bruce M Simpson: "Re: RTF_CLONING vs RTF_PRCLONING"
- In reply to: Garrett Wollman: "RTF_CLONING vs RTF_PRCLONING"
- Next in thread: Ruslan Ermilov: "Re: RTF_CLONING vs RTF_PRCLONING"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:51:40 +0100 To: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 05:51:28PM -0400, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> 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.
I have a hack in the works to support on-demand routing in a userland
daemon which will actually make use of this.
BMS
_______________________________________________
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: Bruce M Simpson: "Re: RTF_CLONING vs RTF_PRCLONING"
- In reply to: Garrett Wollman: "RTF_CLONING vs RTF_PRCLONING"
- Next in thread: Ruslan Ermilov: "Re: RTF_CLONING vs RTF_PRCLONING"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|