netdev - Re: IPv6: presentation format for zero scope ID

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:	Wed, 9 Dec 2009 14:57:31 -0500
From:	Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>
To:	Brian Haley <brian.haley@...com>
Cc:	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>,
	Linux Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: IPv6: presentation format for zero scope ID

Brian-

On Dec 8, 2009, at 8:03 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:

> On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 22:27:16 -0500
> Brian Haley <brian.haley@...com> wrote:
>
>> Chuck Lever wrote:
>>> I recently added some functions to sunrpc.ko that behave like
>>> getnameinfo(AI_NUMERICHOST) does in user space.
>>>
>>> One of the functions, rpc_ntop6(), sticks a scope ID on the end of  
>>> link-
>>> and site-local IPv6 addresses.  It does not try to map the scope  
>>> ID to a
>>> device name.
>>
>> Site-local addresses have been deprecated...
>>
>
> So this means that addresses with those prefixes should be treated  
> like
> any other address, right? If so, then I think the rpc_ntop6  
> shouldn't be
> affixing scopeid's to site local addresses.

As a final detail, we're trying to understand what is the correct  
treatment for site-local addresses.  I've looked at RFC 3879.  In late- 
model Linux kernels, is Jeff's interpretation correct, for application  
layer protocols like RPC?

--
Chuck Lever
chuck[dot]lever[at]oracle[dot]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