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: <4BA718F3.7050103@linux-ipv6.org>
Date:	Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:14:59 +0900
From:	YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>
To:	Pekka Savola <pekkas@...core.fi>
CC:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] GTSM for IPv6

(2010/03/20 3:02), Pekka Savola wrote:
> 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 :-)
>

Or, how about IPV6_MAX_HOPS, then? :-)

--yoshfuji
--
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