lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Mon, 17 Feb 2014 14:02:02 +0400
From:	Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>
To:	Christoph Paasch <christoph.paasch@...ouvain.be>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, hannes@...essinduktion.org,
	fx.lebail@...oo.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] IPv6: enable bind() to assign an anycast address

Hello!

On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Christoph Paasch
<christoph.paasch@...ouvain.be> wrote:
> I don't have strong opinions for or against this patch.
>
> I was only involved in the original thread because F-X claimed that
> draft-iab-anycast-arch-implications (now RFC 7094) allows the use of anycast
> addresses for TCP, which is not what RFC 7094 is saying. There is no
> recommendation concerning TCP in the RFC and the situation is rather unclear.

The same is here.

Using anycast as source or bind address, why not?

Use of anycast with TCP? Logically impossible, ergo prohibited.
If someone wants to play with fire, the option can be left hidden behind
a sysctl disabled by default.
--
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