netdev - Re: [RFC] GTSM for IPv6

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: <alpine.LRH.2.00.1003191959050.31512@netcore.fi>
Date:	Fri, 19 Mar 2010 20:02:48 +0200 (EET)
From:	Pekka Savola <pekkas@...core.fi>
To:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 
	<yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] GTSM for IPv6

On Fri, 19 Mar 2010, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> Also RFC doesn't explicitly address GTSM on IPV6.
> Maybe the RFC editors think the problem will magically no longer exist
> in IPv6 world because everyone will be using IPsec.

Hmm. When I was editing the RFC, I seem to have put in some text about 
IPv6 (i.e. difference in TTL vs Hop Count naming).  As far as I know, 
there is no other difference :-)

In IPV6_MIN_HOPS hops would seem to point toward the "number of hops" 
which is logically the opposite: 255-$value.  So maybe 
IPV6_MIN_HOPCOUNT is better. But I can live with it either way :-)

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
--
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