On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 11:33:51PM +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: > Netlink is transport protocol - no need to add complexity into it, > it must be as simple as possible and thus extensible. yes. but when you run into a serious addressing shortage (like the internet does with ipv4), you develop something that provides more addresses (such as ipv6). That's why support for more groups than 32 (per family) is something that should be put in the netlink protocol. I totally agree that we need a higher-level api on top of that, in order to hide the details of the networking stack for those not interested in it. -- - Harald Welte <[email protected]> http://netfilter.org/ ============================================================================ "Fragmentation is like classful addressing -- an interesting early architectural error that shows how much experimentation was going on while IP was being designed." -- Paul Vixie
Attachment:
pgpHmynuIZHYS.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- References:
- [PATCH] 1 Wire drivers illegally overload NETLINK_NFLOG
- From: Harald Welte <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] 1 Wire drivers illegally overload NETLINK_NFLOG
- From: Evgeniy Polyakov <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] 1 Wire drivers illegally overload NETLINK_NFLOG
- From: "David S. Miller" <[email protected]>
- Netlink connector
- From: James Morris <[email protected]>
- Re: Netlink connector
- From: Evgeniy Polyakov <[email protected]>
- Re: Netlink connector
- From: Patrick McHardy <[email protected]>
- Re: Netlink connector
- From: Eric Leblond <[email protected]>
- Re: Netlink connector
- From: Evgeniy Polyakov <[email protected]>
- [PATCH] 1 Wire drivers illegally overload NETLINK_NFLOG
- Prev by Date: Re: Netlink connector
- Next by Date: [patch 6/6] mm: core remove PageReserved (take 2)
- Previous by thread: Re: Netlink connector
- Next by thread: Re: Netlink connector
- Index(es):
