Subject: Re: [RFC] iproute: Add support for extended ack to rtnl_talk

From: Stephen Hemminger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 09:43:56 -0700

On Thu, 04 May 2017 10:41:03 -0400 (EDT)
David Miller <[email-masked]> wrote:

> From: David Ahern <[email-masked]>
> Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 08:27:35 -0600
> 
> > On 5/4/17 3:36 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:  
> >> What is the clear benefit/rationale of outsourcing this to
> >> libmnl? I always was the impression we should strive for as little
> >> dependencies as possible?  
> > 
> > +1  
> 
> Agreed, all else being equal iproute2 should be as self contained
> as possible since it is such a fundamental tool.

Sorry, the old netlink code is more difficult to understand than libmnl.
Having dependency on a library is not a problem. There already is
an alternative implementation of ip commands in busybox for those
people trying to work in small environments.