netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2] Take care of xfrm policy when checking dst entries

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

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