[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20191225.161927.1679721474728857271.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2019 16:19:27 -0800 (PST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: tom@...bertland.com
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, simon.horman@...ronome.com,
willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 net-next 0/9] ipv6: Extension header infrastructure
From: Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2019 09:55:39 -0800
> This patchset improves the IPv6 extension header infrastructure
> to make extension headers more usable and scalable.
>
> - Reorganize extension header files to separate out common
> API components
> - Create common TLV handler that will can be used in other use
> cases (e.g. segment routing TLVs, UDP options)
> - Allow registration of TLV handlers
> - Elaborate on the TLV tables to include more characteristics
> - Add a netlink interface to set TLV parameters (such as
> alignment requirements, authorization to send, etc.)
> - Enhance validation of TLVs being sent. Validation is strict
> (unless overridden by admin) following that sending clause
> of the robustness principle
> - Allow non-privileged users to set Hop-by-Hop and Destination
> Options if authorized by the admin
I see no explanation as to why we want to do this, nor why any of this
is desirable at all or at any level.
So as in the past, I will keep pushing back on this series because I
see no real well defined, reasonable, impetus for it.
Sorry.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists