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  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]
Date:	Mon, 17 Feb 2014 11:42:45 -0800 (PST)
From:	Fran├žois-Xavier Le Bail <>
To:	David Miller <>,
	"" <>
Cc:	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] IPv6: enable bind() to assign an anycast address

> From: David Miller <>

> From: Alexey Kuznetsov <>
>>  On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Christoph Paasch
>>  <> 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.

If I understand well the reviews, no change was ask for this patch.
The sysctl was asked in case of patch for TCP.
So, why the status is now "Changes Requested" ? 
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists