netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/1] ipv6: remove the destination condition on flow label sharing

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <52750000.10003@enst-bretagne.fr>
Date:	Sat, 02 Nov 2013 14:37:04 +0100
From:	Florent Fourcot <florent.fourcot@...t-bretagne.fr>
To:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/1] ipv6: remove the destination condition on
 flow label sharing


> Why?
> 
> Maybe I am not the only one up to date with recent advances in flow label
> management but I guess others want to know why, too?
> 

Actually, the good question is "why this restriction before". It
probably comes from the RFC 1809, an informational one:

RFC 1809 says:
> 
>    The specification further requires that all datagrams with the same
>    (non-zero) Flow Label must have the same Destination Address, Hop-
>    by-Hop Options header, Routing Header and Source Address contents.

In standard track RFCs (3697 / 6437), there are no restriction to set a
flow label to only one destination. In the same way, the condition on
IPv6 option is obsolete.


> Please reflect this in your changelog.
> 

I will send a V2.
--
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