netdev - Re: ipv6: why disable ipv6 on last address removal?

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: <4B1F5423.4070109@linux-ipv6.org>
Date:	Wed, 09 Dec 2009 16:39:15 +0900
From:	YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	jbohac@...e.cz, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ipv6: why disable ipv6 on last address removal?

Hello.

Well, AFAIK, it is basically ancient thing.
Some (rather new) paramters are exactly related bringing
up each interface.

Such parameters should be set _before_ it is brought up.
For now, people can do this using the "default" value.

We might have rtnetlink interface for up/down interface,
allowing userspace to send related parameters as well.

Regards,

--yoshfuji

David Miller wrote:
> From: Jiri Bohac <jbohac@...e.cz>
> Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 20:20:46 +0100
> 
>> Is there any reason why inet6_addr_del needs to sets how=1 and
>> disable IPv6 even more than "ifconfig down" does?
> 
> All I can say is that this behavior is definitely on purpose, although
> I don't exactly remember why.
> 
> And although it helps you, it could also break things for other people
> who expect the current behavior.
> 
> Some people definitely expect no IPV6 at all in any way shape or
> form if they have not assigned IPV6 addresses to an interface.

--
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