netdev - Re: [RFC] bonding: add better ipv6 failover 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]

Message-ID: <48DBB181.9050205@hp.com>
Date:	Thu, 25 Sep 2008 11:42:57 -0400
From:	Brian Haley <brian.haley@...com>
To:	Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>
CC:	Vlad Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@...com>,
	Alex Sidorenko <alexandre.sidorenko@...com>,
	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] bonding: add better ipv6 failover support

Jay Vosburgh wrote:
> Brian Haley <brian.haley@...com> wrote:
> 
>> This is an RFC patch to add better IPv6 failover support for bonding
>> devices, especially when in active-backup mode, as reported by Alex
>> Sidorenko.
>>
>> What this patch does:
>>
>> - Creates a new Kconfig option in the IPv6 Networking section to
>>  compile-in the support in the bonding driver.  This also forces
>>  IPV6=y since that's required to link everything.
> 
> 	I think it's probably better to have the IPV6 dependent bits
> somehow depend on CONFIG_IPV6 rather than having a Kconfig entry.  I
> doubt that many real-world users will say yes to IPv6 and bonding, but
> no to the bonding IPv6 support.  I also suspect that the IPV6=y
> requirement won't fly with distros.

I'm sure there's a way to do this better, for example, SCTP can be built 
as a module with IPv6 support and have IPV6=m.  I'll try to make it work 
without the option when IPV6=y or m.

>> - Adds a new master_ipv6 address member to the bonding struct to
>>  hold a copy of the primary IPv6 address on the bond.
> 
> 	Do we need to issue an NS for each ipv6 address, or is one
> sufficient?

It didn't seem like it from my testing, that single NS was enough to 
wake-up the switch when pinging either the link-local or global.  I'd 
have to add another global with a different prefix and re-test.

> 	Do ipv6 addresses configured on VLANs need one (or more) NS per
> VLAN?

I didn't test with VLANs, there would probably need to be some 
additional work there.

> 	 I haven't tried the patch yet, so I'll comment further once
> I've had a chance to test it (which may not be until tomorrow).

Thanks,

-Brian
--
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