netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2] IPv6: enable bind() to assign an anycast address

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: <20140217.141949.1387848185062797150.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Mon, 17 Feb 2014 14:19:49 -0500 (EST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	kuznet@....inr.ac.ru
Cc:	christoph.paasch@...ouvain.be, hannes@...essinduktion.org,
	fx.lebail@...oo.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, eric.dumazet@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] IPv6: enable bind() to assign an anycast
 address

From: Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 14:02:02 +0400

> Hello!
> 
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Christoph Paasch
> <christoph.paasch@...ouvain.be> wrote:
>> I don't have strong opinions for or against this patch.
>>
>> I was only involved in the original thread because F-X claimed that
>> draft-iab-anycast-arch-implications (now RFC 7094) allows the use of anycast
>> addresses for TCP, which is not what RFC 7094 is saying. There is no
>> recommendation concerning TCP in the RFC and the situation is rather unclear.
> 
> The same is here.
> 
> Using anycast as source or bind address, why not?
> 
> Use of anycast with TCP? Logically impossible, ergo prohibited.
> If someone wants to play with fire, the option can be left hidden behind
> a sysctl disabled by default.

Agreed.
--
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