[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49A6F8F1.4060104@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 15:17:53 -0500
From: Vlad Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@...com>
To: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>
CC: Brian Haley <brian.haley@...com>, Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, arvidjaar@...l.ru,
tytso@....edu, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, rjw@...k.pl,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, bonding-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
jamagallon@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] bonding: move IPv6 support into a separate kernel
module
Chuck Lever wrote:
> On Feb 26, 2009, at Feb 26, 2009, 3:01 PM, Brian Haley wrote:
>> Chuck Lever wrote:
>>>> I think changing ipv6 to support a disable_ipv6 module parameter
>>>> like Vlad suggested would work, as long as we're not worried about
>>>> someone opening an AF_INET6 socket - even if they do they won't get
>>>> anywhere.
>>> In this case, if IPV6ONLY is set on an AF_INET6 listener, it should
>>> still get AF_INET traffic, correct?
>>
>> No, it should get nothing, and a send should get ENETUNREACH.
>
> Sorry, I got my logic backwards. If IPV6ONLY is intentionally cleared
> on an AF_INET6 socket, it should still be able to handle AF_INET traffic.
Yes. :-)
-vlad
>
> --
> Chuck Lever
> chuck[dot]lever[at]oracle[dot]com
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists