[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4BBA34A9.6080802@inex.ie>
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2010 20:06:17 +0100
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@...x.ie>
To: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>
CC: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
Pekka Savola <pekkas@...core.fi>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] IPv6: Generic TTL Security Mechanism (original version)
On 05/04/2010 05:48, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki wrote:
> I am for 1/3 (original), not for 2/3, 3/3.
>
> Because we should allow users to set respective value
> for IPv4 and IPv6, as we allow users to do so for TTL
> and hoplimit itself.
<non-linux-user>
I concur. ipv4 mapped addresses need special handling in lots of cases,
and I don't believe that patch 2/3 adds anything here - except possibly
confusion.
Regarding case 3/3, ipv4 and ipv6 are separate protocols. Treating them
as the same from the setsockopt() point of view is a clear case of the
Wrong Thing.
</non-linux-user>
Case 1/3 is IMO a better approach. It satisfies both KISS (keep it
simple...) and POLA (principle of least astonishment).
Nick
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists