Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 18:09:28 +0900 From: Jun-ichiro itojun Itoh <itojun@itojun.org> To: dag-erli@ifi.uio.no (Dag-Erling Coidan =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?= ) Cc: Petri Helenius <pete@sms.fi>, "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>, Guido van Rooij <guido@gvr.org>, peter@netplex.com.au (Peter Wemm), net@FreeBSD.ORG, core@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: INRIA IPv6 on FreeBSD Message-ID: <13955.895050568@coconut.itojun.org> In-Reply-To: dag-erli's message of 13 May 1998 09:51:15 %2B0200. <xzp1ztysj64.fsf@hindarfjell.ifi.uio.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>I am going to discuss this with some of the IPv6 researchers here and >try to determine, in the course of the next few weeks, what the >differences between the two implementions are and how significant they >are. Looking forward to hearing from you, >both stacks have different interfaces (e.g. different locations for >IPv6 header files; INRIA places its headers in /usr/include/netinet/ >and modifies some of the existing headers, whereas WIDE places its >headers in /usr/include/netinet6/ and tries to modify as few existing >files as possible). This means that whichever stack we choose, All we have to conform for header file placement is two RFCs (RFC2133 and RFC2292). WIDE stack for 2.2.6 is aimed for plug-and-play installation so we do want to patch small number of files as possible so we have chosen to put those files into sys/netinet6. (of course, we are flexible about this and may try to move those into sys/netinet, if there's any significant differences) itojun To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?13955.895050568>