Re: RFC 5006 status

[Michael Cardell Widerkrantz <mc@hack.org>]

Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops@u-1.phicoh.com>, 2010-03-18 10:38 (+0100):

> From an implementors point of view, the main thing I find annoying
> about RFC-5006 is that information about DNS servers ends up in the
> kernel instead of in user land where I need it. And I don't want the
> kernel to store and forward all kinds of user land data.

No client side implementation of RFC 5006 that I know of is done in a
kernel. I guess I don't understand what you mean.

Implementing an RFC 5006 client side would typically be done with

  ICMP6_FILTER_SETBLOCKALL(&filter);
  ICMP6_FILTER_SETPASS(ND_ROUTER_ADVERT, &filter);

which then gives you RAs in your userland application, to be read from a
socket just like any other network data.

(Strictly speaking, all network data is passed through the kernel an
almost all operating systems, but that, I guess, is beside the point.)

-- 
http://hack.org/mc/
Use plain text e-mail, please. OpenPGP welcome, 0xE4C92FA5.