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]

Date:	Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:58:19 -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 13:56:14 -0800

> On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:51:25 -0800 (PST)
> David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> 
> > From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
> > Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 13:44:02 -0800
> > 
> > > On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:58:30 -0800 (PST)
> > > David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Or is it to gradually get people to use the non-default
> > > > (via distribution sysctl settings etc.) and eventually
> > > > make it the default?
> > > No plan to ever change the default. Just ship with sysctl.conf
> > > setting.
> > 
> > If the distributions all ship with the sysctl changed
> > to the non-default, our "default" is pretty meaningless
> > wouldn't you say?
> 
> It seems the only logical way to undo a poor choice
> in the original design

If the dists can do it so unilaterally, why can't we?

Everything about these proposals is a contradiction.
That's why I don't like them at all.

I say we keep the behavior, we don't change or break
anything, and people need to learn how to cope with it.
--
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