[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4676C74A.4010607@hp.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 13:56:26 -0400
From: Vlad Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@...com>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, oliver@...tkopp.net,
yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
koster@...ian.org.tw, socketcan@...tkopp.net,
urs@...ogud.escape.de, florz@...rz.de
Subject: Re: [IPV6] addrconf: Fix IPv6 on tuntap tunnels
Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 03:14:57PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
>>> No, the questions should really be:
>>>
>>> 1. Is IPV6 supported over this media type.
>>> yes: got to 2
>>> no: stop
>>>
>>> 2. Is the device MTU >= IPV6_MIN_MTU
>>> yes: continue
>>> no: stop
>>>
>>> Autoconfiguration is a layer on top of IPv6. Whether it's enabled
>>> or not should not dictate whether IPv6 addressed may be configured or not.
>> Sounds good to me, patches? :-)
>
> I don't think we need any more patches since right now MTU >= IPV6_MIN_MTU
> is the only condition we require before we allow IPv6 addresses to be added
> to an interface.
>
> The original patch simply confused this basic IPv6 address support with
> IPv6 autoconfiguration.
Looking over the history, Herbert has mostly right.
The only concern I have is that it's currently permitted to configure
IPv6 addresses on interface that would not have link-local addressing
(ex: IEEE 1394 link).
Now, is some circumstances that's ok (tuntap is a perfect example).
In others, particularly where there is an "IPv6 over foo" spec, not so much.
-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