| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <49666C04.6050605@candelatech.com> Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:11:32 -0800 From: Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com> To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> CC: shemminger@...tta.com, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] IPV6 address management David Miller wrote: > From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com> > Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 12:12:20 -0800 > >> What about this? >> >> If it works (still testing), I'll submit it. > > So what is your plan? > > Make the routing daemons depend upon the non-default > behavior in order to act correctly? They could check and take corrective action or tell the user to set it one way or another. Robust and complex apps already have to check all sorts of things anyway. > Or is it to gradually get people to use the non-default > (via distribution sysctl settings etc.) and eventually > make it the default? > > I disagree with both plans, and with that the facility > is basically useless. > > We absolutely have to live with the behavior we have now, > and for a long time if not forever. It could be argued we need to have the default behaviour stay the same, but that's no reason to keep things difficult for people/programs flexible enough to deal with change. Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com> Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com -- 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