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  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]
Date:   Sat, 12 Dec 2020 12:05:35 +0100
From:   Harald Welte <>
To:     Jonas Bonn <>
Cc:     Pravin Shelar <>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <>,
        Pablo Neira Ayuso <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 10/12] gtp: add IPv6 support

Hi Jonas,

On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 08:05:40AM +0100, Jonas Bonn wrote:
> Yes, you're probably right.  Given that IPv6 isn't really optional in
> contexts where this driver is relevant, [...]

I strongly contest this statement. GTP is used in a lot of legacy contexts
without any IPv6 requirements whatsoever.  _particularly_ so on the outer/
transport level, where even GSMA IR.34 in still states:

> The IPX Provider's and Service Provider's networks must support IPv4
> addressing and routing.  IPv6 addressing and routing is recommended.

So there is (still) no requirement for IPv6 on the transport level
between cellular operators.
The fact that this gtp module has existed until today with pure IPv4
support has something to say about that.

I'm of course all in support of finally getting IPv6 support merged (via
your patches!) - but I see absolutely no reason why a GTP kernel module
would have a mandatory dependency on IPv6.

- Harald Welte <> 
"Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option."
                                                  (ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists