From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Nov 26 09:20:44 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 1234116A4CE; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:20:43 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from mx01.bos.ma.towardex.com (mx01.bos.ma.towardex.com
	[65.124.16.9])	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id AD56343D2F; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:20:43 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from haesu@mx01.bos.ma.towardex.com)
Received: by mx01.bos.ma.towardex.com (TowardEX ESMTP 3.0p11_DAKN, from userid
	1001)	id 3E3222F93F; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 04:20:43 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 04:20:42 -0500
From: James <haesu@towardex.com>
To: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org>
Message-ID: <20041126092042.GA88208@scylla.towardex.com>
References: <20041125140641.GA78210@cell.sick.ru>
	<20041126025510.GA44246@scylla.towardex.com>
	<20041126091316.GA84369@cell.sick.ru>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20041126091316.GA84369@cell.sick.ru>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
cc: net@freebsd.org
cc: James <haesu@towardex.com>
Subject: Re: route cacheing for gif(4) should be optional
X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:20:44 -0000

On Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 12:13:16PM +0300, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
[ snip ]

> 
> There is no LINK3 flag :)

Heheh, good call ;)

> 
> However, gif(4) does not use LINK0 flag. It was used in past. We can utilize
> it now. Any objections? 

I have no objections myself as long as this option is separated from existing
link2 feature, so yea I agree in that link0 is good idea there.

Thanks!
-J

-- 
James Jun                                            TowardEX Technologies, Inc.
Technical Lead                      Boston IPv4/IPv6 Web Hosting, Colocation and
james@towardex.com            Network design/consulting & configuration services
cell: 1(978)-394-2867           web: http://www.towardex.com , noc: www.twdx.net