[SLOF] [PATCH 1/2] ping: use gateway address for routing

Nikunj A Dadhania nikunj at linux.vnet.ibm.com
Fri Apr 22 18:53:32 AEST 2016

Thomas Huth <thuth at redhat.com> writes:

> On 22.04.2016 09:39, Nikunj A Dadhania wrote:
>> Thomas Huth <thuth at redhat.com> writes:
> ...
>>> Sorry again for not using the right terms ... I meant the specifying the
>>> prefix length (and thus the netmask) with a CIDR prefix notation, see
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classless_Inter-Domain_Routing#CIDR_notation
>>> That means, it might maybe be useful to support specifying the client
>>> address with a prefix length like this:
>>>  load net:,filename,
>>> What do you think?
>> So that will be client-ip/nn, we need to take care we dont break old
>> cases. how about
>> Currently, its this
>> [bootp,ipv6,dhcp,]siaddr,filename,ciaddr,giaddr,bootp-retries,tftp-retries
>> Change that to:
>> [bootp,ipv6,dhcp,]siaddr,filename,ciaddr,giaddr,bootp-retries,tftp-retries,netmask
>> One more argument at the end.
> That would of course work, too. But actually, I already always have a
> hard time to remember the current order of the arguments here ... adding
> some more does not sound too appealing to me.
> There is one more thing to consider: IPv6. Currently, the IPv6 code
> silently assumes a prefix length of 64 for all addresses (I think),
> which works in most cases, but is technically also wrong, of course. So
> we might need a way to specify the prefix length / netmask for IPv6,
> too, one day. And for IPv6, you certainly don't want to type the whole
> netmask but use the /prefixlen notation instead. So I'd recommend to use
> that for IPv4 here, too, to keep both as close as possible.

If we could handle this without breaking the current parsing logic, that
should be fine.


More information about the SLOF mailing list