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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.01.1209221841220.18458@nerf07.vanv.qr> Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 18:49:07 +0200 (CEST) From: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...i.de> To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> cc: vyasevich@...il.com, nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com, sri@...ibm.com, linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] Take care of xfrm policy when checking dst entries On Monday 2012-09-10 20:01, David Miller wrote: >> >> So you are perfectly ok with invalidating IPv6 cache when IPv4 table >> changes, but not invalidating IPv4 cache if IPv6 table changes? > >Due to tunneling I can't see how this is avoidable? > >We do ipv6 over ipv4, but not vice-versa. I have a setup here where 6 machines are connected with one another (most of them) to form 9 IPsec sessions, all of which are ESP6 links - since native IPv6 is provided - that also handle the site-to-site IPv4 traffic. Does that count? -- 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