Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964788AbXBYLSc (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Feb 2007 06:18:32 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964800AbXBYLSb (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Feb 2007 06:18:31 -0500 Received: from [212.12.190.241] ([212.12.190.241]:32830 "EHLO raad.intranet" rhost-flags-FAIL-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964788AbXBYLSb (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Feb 2007 06:18:31 -0500 From: Al Boldi To: netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: ipv4 and ipv6 stacks for new link layers? Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 14:21:16 +0300 User-Agent: KMail/1.5 Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200702251421.16863.a1426z@gawab.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 924 Lines: 28 David Miller wrote: > From: Markku Savela > > I think that is worse than allow a new driver to provide a simple > > service function which maps IPv4/6 multicast address into link layer > > address, when asked. > > The problem is that this mapping isn't so simple for several > link layer types. But this mapping seems to be just a simple de-coupling tool, and any de-coupling by definition does/should not change the underlying implementation in any way, while allowing for a dynamic rather than a fixed/hardcoded relation between the layers. So, can you give an example of a link-layer that does not easily de-couple from the transport? Thanks! -- Al - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/