DragonFlyBSD

Good work. I'm sure there are guys making more comments and more detailed
review, but at first I have to kick myself not catching it earlier in the
progress - routing header type 0 is really obsolete - see RFC5095 3:
"IPv6 implementations are no longer required to implement RH0 in any
way.". Therefore most of code handling RH0 can be just removed. There is
just no point to preserve the code for compatibility with RFC2292.

It does not mean that inet6_rth_*() functions could be removed - these
have to stay as stubs (as they were AFAIK) and wait for code to handle
type2 headers. You should be also careful not breaking whole world via
removing members from structures, but the code handling these has to go
(as most of rthdr.c in the kernel and related code in the ping6 for
example).

PS. Note that in vacation and not able to participate in discussion much,
but I hope there are others who have opinion regarding the project :).

Hi Hasso:
Thanks for comment, :)
The routing header type 0 is removed in the codes, I have make some
mistake in the document, and I will correct it now, :)
And the whole world is ok after rm routing header type 0, I have
change all the codes that related to routing header types 0, and
rebuild the world & kernel.
Thanks!
Have a good vocation!
Huang Dashu

Hi Hasso:
Thanks for comment, :), I have send email too fast just now,
I now get what's you mean and will remove routing header type 0 from
my codes and document, and see RFC5095 for more detail.
Thanks for instruction.
Best wishes!
Huang Dashu

Hi Hasso:
Thanks for comment, :), I have send email too fast just now,
I now get what's you mean and will remove routing header type 0 from
my codes and document, and see RFC5095 for more detail.
Thanks for instruction.
Best wishes!
Huang Dashu

On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 3:27 AM, Hasso Tepper
<bugs@lists.dragonflybsd.org> wrote:

Hasso Tepper <hasso@estpak.ee> added the comment:

Good work. I'm sure there are guys making more comments and more detailed
review, but at first I have to kick myself not catching it earlier in the
progress - routing header type 0 is really obsolete - see RFC5095 3:
"IPv6 implementations are no longer required to implement RH0 in any
way.". Therefore most of code handling RH0 can be just removed. There is
just no point to preserve the code for compatibility with RFC2292.

It does not mean that inet6_rth_*() functions could be removed - these
have to stay as stubs (as they were AFAIK) and wait for code to handle
type2 headers. You should be also careful not breaking whole world via
removing members from structures, but the code handling these has to go
(as most of rthdr.c in the kernel and related code in the ping6 for
example).

PS. Note that in vacation and not able to participate in discussion much,
but I hope there are others who have opinion regarding the project :).

----------
status: unread -> chatting

_____________________________________________
DragonFly issue tracker <bugs@lists.dragonflybsd.org>
<https://bugs.dragonflybsd.org/issue1090>
_____________________________________________

Hi Hasso
Another question, in your email, you said that "There is just no point
to preserve the code for compatibility with RFC2292", do you mean all
the RFC2292 related codes that have been obsolete by RFC3542 should be
removed from the OS (for example inet6_option_space,
inet6_rthdr_add()), or you just mean we can remove RH0?
As I know, in current FreeBSD OS those old RFC2292 related API such as
"inet6_option_space(), inet6_rthdr_add()" are preserved.

Thanks!
Huang Dashu

Just RH0 related code of course. Preserving compatibility with RFC2292 in
general is must be.

And we must preserve it as well. You should be careful not to break whole
world of course by removing blindly all strings that contain "rth" :).
All inet6_rthdr_*() functions must exists (from both old and new API),
but there is no point to handle RH0 in these. For now where we don't
support type 2 routing headers these functions can be simple "return
something that shows we don't support any routing header type".

Thanks! I get it, :).
Huang Dashu

Hi all:
I have remove RH0 from my codes and updated related document,
for more detail, please see http://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/~dhuang2/rfc3542/
Best Wishes!
Huang Dashu

Committed.