lwIP - A Lightweight TCP/IP stack - Tasks: task #13106, Add IPv6 scopes
You are not allowed to post comments on this tracker with your current authentication level.
task #13106: Add IPv6 scopes
Submitter: | Ivan Delamer <idelamer> | ||
Submitted: | Tue 25 Feb 2014 10:45:42 PM UTC | ||
Category: | IPv6 | Should Start On: | Tue 25 Feb 2014 07:00:00 AM UTC |
Should be Finished on: | Wed 25 Feb 2015 07:00:00 AM UTC | Priority: | 5 - Normal |
Status: | Done | Privacy: | Public |
Assigned to: | None | Percent Complete: | 100% |
Open/Closed: | Closed | Planned Release: | None |
Effort: | 0.00 |
Jump to the original submission
Wed 15 Feb 2017 08:53:42 PM UTC, comment #32: |
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Fri 10 Feb 2017 01:01:06 PM UTC, comment #31:
|
David van Moolenbroek <dcvmoole> |
Fri 10 Feb 2017 12:04:14 PM UTC, comment #30: Right, the _packed macros... we should find a better name for that and ip6_addr_p_t now that this type is actually different to ip6_addr_t (before it was OK because the only difference was really packing/unaligned access).
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Fri 10 Feb 2017 11:35:56 AM UTC, comment #29: Thank you, Dirk! I guess I am more used to a "you break it, you fix it" environment, so I think it's great when others fix my issues, even if indeed there may be little choice with lwIP's myriad of configuration options.
|
David van Moolenbroek <dcvmoole> |
Thu 09 Feb 2017 08:26:23 PM UTC, comment #28: And I agree to all your other explanations :-)
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Thu 09 Feb 2017 08:20:04 PM UTC, comment #27: David, I've just pushed a change to icmp6.c which I think cleans it up a bit... |
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Thu 09 Feb 2017 06:03:13 PM UTC, comment #26: You did not create a mess. The quality of your patches is very good.
|
Dirk Ziegelmeier <dziegel> |
Tue 07 Feb 2017 10:31:05 PM UTC, comment #25: Cool! Thank you Joel and Dirk for cleaning up some of the mess I created.. :) |
David van Moolenbroek <dcvmoole> |
Tue 07 Feb 2017 04:47:37 PM UTC, comment #24: Pushed fix for building sockets on MSVC. In addition, I can confirm the following configurations work with sockets (with MSVC)
|
Joel Cunningham <jcunningham> |
Sat 04 Feb 2017 03:15:21 PM UTC, comment #23: Dirk, I'm afraid your fix for Axel Lin's reported issue is not the full fix, because this wasn't just a compilation warning - I actually messed it up in such a way that the resulting behavior was wrong. The attached patch 0001, against master, resolves the bug.
|
David van Moolenbroek <dcvmoole> |
Sat 04 Feb 2017 01:03:53 AM UTC, comment #22: Thank you for merging the patches, Simon! Great feedback too; please allow me to get back to you on that as soon as I've had some sleep.
|
David van Moolenbroek <dcvmoole> |
Fri 03 Feb 2017 10:32:12 PM UTC, comment #21: I'm seeing the following builds errors on MSVC 2013
|
Joel Cunningham <jcunningham> |
Fri 03 Feb 2017 10:11:10 PM UTC, comment #20: Oh, and it seemed like the CUSTOM define was used in '#if' although undefined... |
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Fri 03 Feb 2017 09:47:16 PM UTC, comment #19: David, I've just pushed your patches. Great work, thanks!
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Tue 31 Jan 2017 02:12:48 PM UTC, comment #18: :) no problem at all.. |
David van Moolenbroek <dcvmoole> |
Mon 30 Jan 2017 08:04:41 PM UTC, comment #17: David, thanks again for your effort on this (and on lwIP in general!). Sorry I haven't found the time to look at your patches yet (I've been a bit busy at home lately). From reading your post, everything sounds fine though... |
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Fri 27 Jan 2017 05:53:29 PM UTC, comment #16: Alright, here is my patch for implementing support for IPv6 scopes. It is fairly big, but I hope that the commit message and code comments explain well enough what's going on. As such I'd like to ask you to look at the patch for a detailed description, so that I can limit this post to the design decisions I took based on the discussion here (and a bit about testing).
|
David van Moolenbroek <dcvmoole> |
Fri 20 Jan 2017 04:56:13 AM UTC, comment #15: I opened a new task (task #14314) for interface name/index APIs and have provided my first set of cleaned up patches |
Joel Cunningham <jcunningham> |
Wed 18 Jan 2017 11:42:56 PM UTC, comment #14: Comment #13:
|
David van Moolenbroek <dcvmoole> |
Wed 18 Jan 2017 09:56:01 PM UTC, comment #13: If there's interest, I have some patches that implement if_index_toname, if_name_toindex, if_nameindex, and if_freenameindex that I can post to the tracker
|
Joel Cunningham <jcunningham> |
Wed 18 Jan 2017 08:46:09 PM UTC, comment #12: Re comment #9 size idea:
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Wed 18 Jan 2017 07:57:28 PM UTC, comment #11: I agree that having a 1-based scope ID is a good idea, and leave index 0 for "no scope" or "smart guess"
|
Ivan Delamer <idelamer> |
Wed 18 Jan 2017 07:55:07 PM UTC, comment #10:
|
David van Moolenbroek <dcvmoole> |
Wed 18 Jan 2017 07:18:05 PM UTC, comment #9: I don't think removing scopes are worth another #ifdef mess. It shouldn't be that much memory overhead.
|
Dirk Ziegelmeier <dziegel> |
Wed 18 Jan 2017 07:11:18 PM UTC, comment #8: Maybe if we make scopes optional (#define LWIP_IPV6_SCOPES 0) then we can have the extra scope member disappear? |
Ivan Delamer <idelamer> |
Wed 18 Jan 2017 07:07:54 PM UTC, comment #7: Dirk was faster than me :-) Is there any drawback on using netif->num?
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Wed 18 Jan 2017 07:06:43 PM UTC, comment #6: That's what I was thinking but couldn't remember. I think we should reuse that.
|
Ivan Delamer <idelamer> |
Wed 18 Jan 2017 07:04:22 PM UTC, comment #5: Just as a note to the scope ID: There is an u8_t netif->num - already managed by netif code to be unique. |
Dirk Ziegelmeier <dziegel> |
Wed 18 Jan 2017 07:00:20 PM UTC, comment #4: All good ideas.
|
Ivan Delamer <idelamer> |
Wed 18 Jan 2017 06:50:00 PM UTC, comment #3: Good points; to be honest I was focused on the core part of lwIP so far, as that's the part I am interested in myself :) but indeed, the higher-level (socket API etc) side should be involved in the considerations as well.
|
David van Moolenbroek <dcvmoole> |
Wed 18 Jan 2017 05:55:42 PM UTC, comment #2: Great suggestions David. Can't believe it's been three years since I posted this task.
|
Ivan Delamer <idelamer> |
Wed 18 Jan 2017 05:41:53 PM UTC, comment #1: For correctness of multi-interface IPv6 nodes this is a rather important task, because there may be overlap between link-local addresses used on separate links, and the current IPv6 code is in no way ready to deal with that.
|
David van Moolenbroek <dcvmoole> |
Tue 25 Feb 2014 10:45:42 PM UTC, original submission:
We should add scopes to differentiate link-local addresses in separate netifs.
|
Ivan Delamer <idelamer> |
Depends on the following items: None found
Items that depend on this one: None found
There are 0 votes so far. Votes easily highlight which items people would like to see resolved in priority, independently of the priority of the item set by tracker managers.
Follow 8 latest changes.
Date | Changed by | Updated Field | Previous Value | => | Replaced by |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2017-02-15 | goldsimon | Status | None | Done | |
Percent Complete | 90% | 100% | |||
Open/Closed | Open | Closed | |||
2017-02-04 | dcvmoole | Attached File | - | Added 0001-ip6-fix-parentheses-in-ip6_addr_has_scope.patch, #39660 | |
Attached File | - | Added 0002-ip6-split-icmp6_send_response-from-_with_addrs.patch, #39661 | |||
2017-02-03 | goldsimon | Percent Complete | 0% | 90% | |
2017-01-27 | dcvmoole | Attached File | - | Added 0001-Add-support-for-IPv6-address-scopes.patch, #39572 | |
Attached File | - | Added 0002-tcp-eliminate-some-redundant-route-lookups.patch, #39573 |
Powered by Savane 3.13-3230.
Corresponding source code
I can't make up anything either. Let's just keep it as it is, there are bad names somewhere else too ;-)
--> closed as done.