netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net: ipv6: put autoconf routes into per-interface tables

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: <e282793e-4057-7fe6-8322-e1899d873ae2@cumulusnetworks.com>
Date:   Mon, 9 Jan 2017 19:08:57 -0700
From:   David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>
To:     Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@...gle.com>
Cc:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Maciej Żenczykowski <zenczykowski@...il.com>,
        Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
        Erik Kline <ek@...gle.com>,
        YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <hideaki.yoshifuji@...aclelinux.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Daniel Rosenberg <drosen@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: ipv6: put autoconf routes into
 per-interface tables

On 1/9/17 7:01 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> As others have mentioned, IPv6 on VRFs in client mode is also not
> necessarily well-supported at the moment, and I don't know how long it
> would take for it to be (assuming it can be made to work properly in
> client mode without breaking the primary use cases for VRFs).

That's news to me. What about IPv6 and VRF is not working or well-supported?