Hello Hugo,

Hugo Santos wrote:

Hi,

quoted

On the other hand, if a ND daemon loose the synchronization, it is
unpredicable, I guess.

   What do you mean by synchronization in this context? My idea was to
 keep the ND state machine inside the kernel, and instead have the
 daemon be reactive. That means it would send messages on behalf of the
 kernel, and apply information based on received signalling (besides, ND
 is reseliant to loss of messages). Taking your example, if the kernel
 is using a neighbor entry and you replace it (either changing it's
 state or link-layer address), the kernel will adapt, i believe it is
 predictable. To be honest, i'm only worried about possible lost netlink
 messages; but the daemon may be implemented to handle this, re-sending
 while an ACK isn't receiving, thus minimizing any de-synchronization
 possibilities.

The kernel maintains the ND state by itself and the daemon touches
the state. I think the daemon should aware the state.
It is what I meant with "synchronization".

Anyway I do not intend to prevent you from your work anymore.
I quit discussion without seeing the codes.

quoted

BTW, we have a choice which we implement a functionality as a
module. I think it can achieve some of what you want.

   Well, exporting the functionality to a module would be a start to
 have one moving it out of the kernel. :-)

   Hugo

--
Kazunori Miyazawa