netdev - Re: why are IPv6 addresses removed on link down

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: <20150113151352.GB28371@oracle.com>
Date:	Tue, 13 Jan 2015 10:13:52 -0500
From:	Sowmini Varadhan <sowmini.varadhan@...cle.com>
To:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...hat.com>
Cc:	David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
	YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <hideaki.yoshifuji@...aclelinux.com>,
	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: why are IPv6 addresses removed on link down

On (01/13/15 16:09), Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> 
> Yes, it does have something to do with it. But I didn't understand what
> you meant by doing DAD on the interface-id.

I have to dig up the RFCs for this, but I recall that, at one point,
the specs assert that it is sufficient to verify that the interface-id
(I think via DAD for the link-local address) is unique, and use
that to infer uniqueness of all the other non-link-local addresses
as well.

I think later specs may have changed that, asserting that the
correct, safe, proper thing to do is to separately DAD each address
by itself.

> If you look at the patches I just posted, only addresses which are in
> link-local and not in permanent state will be flushed.
> 
> I also need to do research on how to safely approach this, I don't know,
> yet.
> 
> Bye,
> Hannes
> 
> 
--
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