[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: complete the advanced API (rfc2292bis)




> From: Tim Hartrick <tim@mentat.com>

> This would be true if it were possible to add a new extension header type
> without modifying the kernel.  It isn't really possible in the implementations
> I have seen so there really isn't any flexibility gained by throwing out
> the existing extension header API.  New extension headers will require
> kernel modifications.  Once kernel modifications are required, adding API
> hooks to deal with the new extension header is straight forward.

If you consider dynamically loadable modules (DLL's) kernel
extensions, then you are right. It should be possible to add support
for a totally new extension header to an existing stack by a loadable
module, which attaches to the stack, without touching the stack and
API code itself.

This requirement does have some effect on API, and this is why I have
some concern that the current "hardcoded known headers approach" will
differ too much from what I have to put in.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------