netdev - Re: [RFC] IPV6 address management

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: <20090108.112420.102641584.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Thu, 08 Jan 2009 11:24:20 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	shemminger@...tta.com
Cc:	yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] IPV6 address management

From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 09:34:30 -0800

> I notice that with IPV6 when interface is brought down, all addresses
> are removed. This looks like intentional behaviour but means the
> administrator (or daemon) must reinsert addresses. Since this is not
> what the users expect it does lead to confusion.
> 
> Maybe the kernel should do this?

After we've had this behavior for as long as we have, I doubt we can
safely change it.

I do agree it is unintuitive, and it also disagrees with ipv4 as you
already know.

There are several crucial areas where our behavior deviates between
ipv4 and ipv6, including this case.  And as more people start making
real use of ipv6 we will see these complaints pop up over and over
again from users.
--
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