On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 17:24:04 +1000 Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 12:05:12AM -0700, David S. Miller wrote: > > > > PFKEY is not an ABI we can change Herbert. > > I thought Alexey and I taught you that already. > > Fine. What about this path that only makes 32-bit reqid's available > for NETLINK? And if NETLINK app creates req_id with value > 255, what do we report to PF_KEY applications? > PS Almost everybody's PFKEY implementation does flows/policies > differently :) But ours pretty much must follow that of KAME project. We may extend it, like we have for things like UDP encapsulation, but existing interfaces must behave compatibly to what KAME expects. If we are going to deviate from this, we had better have a very good reason for doing so. - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
