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

(usagi-users 03622) Re: bug in addrconf.c[RFC3041]?

To: usagi-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, sabarigirishs@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: (usagi-users 03622) Re: bug in addrconf.c[RFC3041]?
From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 10:24:27 +0900 (JST)
In-reply-to: <9b5c75b20603151922g2fe83cc5j19f0e8aa676020a4@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: USAGI/WIDE Project
References: <9b5c75b20603151922g2fe83cc5j19f0e8aa676020a4@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-to: usagi-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In article <9b5c75b20603151922g2fe83cc5j19f0e8aa676020a4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (at Thu, 16 Mar 2006 08:52:18 +0530), "Sabari Girish" <sabarigirishs@xxxxxxxxx> says:

> As a result of this the regenerated temporary address will be put in
> deprecated state automatically by addrconf_verify(). Instead if we replace
> this statement with [ift->tstamp = jifffies], it works fine.

Okay, I'll take a look at it.

--yoshfuji

References:
- (usagi-users 03621) bug in addrconf.c[RFC3041]?
  - From: Sabari Girish

Prev by Date: (usagi-users 03621) bug in addrconf.c[RFC3041]?
Next by Date: (usagi-users 03623) IPv6 multicast socket specific binding bug
Previous by thread: (usagi-users 03621) bug in addrconf.c[RFC3041]?
Next by thread: (usagi-users 03623) IPv6 multicast socket specific binding bug
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread