[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2007 17:05:14 -0500
From: Vlad Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@...com>
To: Brian Haley <brian.haley@...com>
Cc: Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / ???? <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
sri@...ibm.com, davem@...emloft.net, kuznet@....inr.ac.ru,
pekkas@...core.fi, jmorris@...ei.org, kaber@...eworks.de,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] IPv6: Implement RFC 4429 Optimistic Duplicate Address
Detection
Brian Haley wrote:
> Hi Neil,
>
>> @@ -830,7 +836,8 @@ retry:
>> ift = !max_addresses ||
>> ipv6_count_addresses(idev) < max_addresses ?
>> ipv6_add_addr(idev, &addr, tmp_plen,
>> - ipv6_addr_type(&addr)&IPV6_ADDR_SCOPE_MASK,
>> IFA_F_TEMPORARY) : NULL;
>> + ipv6_addr_type(&addr)&IPV6_ADDR_SCOPE_MASK,
>> + IFA_F_TEMPORARY|IFA_F_OPTIMISTIC) : NULL;
>
Hi Brian
> So why are you always adding these as optimistic now? Shouldn't this be
> triggering off idev->cnf.optimistic_dad? I know you're clearing it in
> ipv6_add_addr(), but I liked Vlad's suggestion of not setting it
> initially since this way seems backwards.
The troubling case seems to manually configured addresses (inet6_addr_add()).
If we can clearly and easily distinguish between this case of address
and all the other ones, then we can simply set the flag in ipv6_add_addr, like
we set the tentative flag.
So, we can introduce another parameter to ipv6_add_addr() or another flag that
can distinguish manual config. Otherwise, we can keep the code as is, passing
the optimistic flag from needed callers, and clearing it inside ipv6_add_addr().
My thought was to clear it from the 'flags' parameter before ifa->flags was
set, but that doesn't really matter.
-vlad
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists