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: <CAMrnHh5osKyOpmObYmWNswZuxYAc0SYUrmfohkg2GaafKmPK0w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 17 Feb 2014 14:02:02 +0400
From:	Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>
To:	Christoph Paasch <christoph.paasch@...ouvain.be>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, hannes@...essinduktion.org,
	fx.lebail@...oo.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] IPv6: enable bind() to assign an anycast address

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.
--
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