[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180626101657.GA20575@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 06:16:57 -0400
From: Sowmini Varadhan <sowmini.varadhan@...cle.com>
To: Ka-Cheong Poon <ka-cheong.poon@...cle.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, santosh.shilimkar@...cle.com,
davem@...emloft.net, rds-devel@....oracle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/3] rds: Enable RDS IPv6 support
On (06/26/18 13:30), Ka-Cheong Poon wrote:
>
> My answer to this is that if a socket is not bound to a link
> local address (meaning it is bound to a non-link local address)
> and it is used to send to a link local peer, I think it should
> fail.
Hmm, I'm not sure I agree. I dont think this is forbidden
by RFC 6724 - yes, such a packet cannot be forwarded, but
if everything is on the same link, and the dest only has
a link-local, you should not need to (create and) bind
another socket to a link-local to talk to this destination..
> This is consistent with the scope_id check I mentioned in
> the previous mail. If the socket is not bound to a link local
> address, the bound_scope_id is 0. So if the socket is used to
> send to a link local address (which has a non-zero scope_id), the
> check will catch it and fail the call. A new conn should not
> be created in this case.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists