(usagi-users 03435) Re: setsockopt for IPv6 on Fedora Core 2?

Hi David,

Thanks very much for your detailed response.  

I have just installed FC4 and found that the IPv6 part
of the kernel is quite difference than the one in 2.4.
 Would this (2.6) be a closer implementation to RFC
3542?

Regarding the example on sendmsg(), I think I should
modifiy the codes provided in section 21.2 of RFC
3542, right? I guess the the codes given in 22.1 is
not useable yet ...

Regards,

Patrick

--- David Stevens <[email protected]> wrote:

> Patrick,
>         Those are utility functions to make it
> easier to construct
> options, but aren't needed (they would be part of
> glibc, not in the 
> kernel).
> Your application just needs to pass well-formed data
> to sendmsg(),
> whether you construct it using inet6_opt_* functions
> or not.
>         I'm currently working on RFC 3542 (Advanced
> Sockets API)
> compliance, and others may be too, so I think it's
> safe to say this area
> is "work in progress" right now.
>         To receive hop options, you can use the
> "IPV6_HOPOPTS"
> boolean (set it to 1). In the new RFC, this becomes
> IPV6_RECVHOPTS,
> so your code will be different as the work
> progresses.
>         To send, you can use the IPV6_HOPOPTS
> cmsg_type in
> ancillary data (in new and old API).
>         There are examples, using the new interface,
> in RFC3542,
> but some of that, of course, is not implemented yet.
> Still, it does have
> example code using sendmsg(), if you haven't done
> that before.
> 
>                                                
> +-DLS
> 
> 
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com