[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1421694712.13047.5.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 20:11:52 +0100
From: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...hat.com>
To: Harout Hedeshian <harouth@...eaurora.org>
Cc: "'David Ahern'" <dsahern@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] net: ipv6: Make address flushing on ifdown optional
On Mo, 2015-01-19 at 09:12 -0700, Harout Hedeshian wrote:
> > I would still prefer that we flush automatically generated addresses and only
> > keep the static and permanent ones.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Bye,
> > Hannes
>
> If I may offer an opinion, I do feel that there are use cases where flushing the auto-generated addresses in ifdown would not be desirable.
>
> We have one such use case where information regarding the state of the network beyond the interface is managed through sideband signaling. We know that the auto-generated address would still be valid on ifup because the router information is unchanged. In this case, ifup/down is solely being used as a way for user space to enable/disable all traffic on a particular netdevice for temporary periods.
>
> That said, I'm not sure how useful this would be for the average user; I see no harm if it is configurable and the default behavior is unchanged.
Do you think it makes sense to combine the logic with the accept_ra
sysctl?
accept_ra && !flush_addr_on_down -> flush addresses generated by accept_ra logic
!accept_ra && !flush_addr_on_down -> don't flush any addresses
I am not sure about that, feels complicated. Would that suite your usecase?
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists