[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1406738686.6757.18.camel@localhost>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 18:44:46 +0200
From: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
To: David Lamparter <equinox@...c24.net>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Subject: Re: [RFC alternate] ipv6: addrconf: clean up device type handling
On Mi, 2014-07-30 at 18:23 +0200, David Lamparter wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 06:12:35PM +0200, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> > On Mi, 2014-07-30 at 17:58 +0200, David Lamparter wrote:
> [cut]
> > > This is an alternate version, yanking the switch() down and removing
> > > dev_config/gre_config duplication. I have no idea what rationale is behind
> > > prefix_route - the result is a fe80::/64 route, but no address, which is not a
> > > functioning configuration. Jiri, you touched this just a few weeks ago, can
> > > you comment? (The "XXX: why is GRE special?")
> >
> > Sure, it is valid. You can still use global addresses to talk to link
> > local addresses on the same link, even from another interface.
>
> Okay, well, that may give some purpose to it, but doesn't really explain
> why GRE is special in this regard...
>
> (And it's a violation of RFC4291 section 2.1 - "All interfaces are
> required to have at least one Link-Local unicast address" - and I'd bet
> on ndisc doing weird things in a setup like that.)
Yep - sure. But we also allow someone to remove the ll address manually.
And people did do that to transition the interface into an
disable_ipv6=1 mode, which had its own problems.
We don't care if the user does rfc compliant configurations. :)
The settings in the kernel should just be reasonable.
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists