From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 18 May 2001 07:31:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 18 May 2001 07:30:55 -0400 Received: from [192.203.80.144] ([192.203.80.144]:23311 "HELO kaiser.inr.ac.ru") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Fri, 18 May 2001 07:30:43 -0400 From: kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru Message-Id: <200105141821.WAA15869@ms2.inr.ac.ru> Subject: Re: IPv6: the same address can be added multiple times To: pekkas@netcore.fi (Pekka Savola) Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 22:21:43 +0400 (MSK DST) Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: from "Pekka Savola" at May 13, 1 11:26:23 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello! > 2) no significant restrictions (==this) When user asks to create some object, the only required thing of any reasonable interface is to return an error when the object is not added. KAME's one is broken, ours is _one_ of right ones. Another example of bad mistake is mine: I have made some crap with creating tunnels: adding tunnel does not fail, when such tunnel already exists, so that user has no idea, whether did it create tunnel (and should it delete it) or someone another made this work. Note, that if we would be able to create _duplicate_ tunnels on each new request (like IPv6 addresses), this would be also right approach. Alexey