netdev - Re: [PATCH v7 net-next 00/13] gtp: Additional feature support

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:   Sun, 29 Oct 2017 10:49:31 +0900 (KST)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     tom@...bertland.com
Cc:     laforge@...monks.org, tom@...ntonium.net, pablo@...filter.org,
        aschultz@...p.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, rohit@...ntonium.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 net-next 00/13] gtp: Additional feature support -
 Part I

From: Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2017 11:37:51 -0700

> Customers are using IPv6!

Customers aren't using GTP with ipv6 the way you have implemented it.

Please stop weasel-wording the situation to frame it in a way that
purely benefits you and your objectives.

Also, just because "nobody has done the work", doesn't mean it's OK to
do the work improperly and then force that implementation upon people.

Harald is right, calling something GTP/ipv6 sets a certain expectation
with people who actually use GTP with ipv6 and have a deployment.  No
matter if you mark it EXPERIMENTAL or whatever, the effect is the
same.

Therefore, I fully agree with Harald.