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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2021 09:32:10 +0200 From: Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com> To: Justin Iurman <justin.iurman@...ege.be> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org, dsahern@...nel.org, tom@...bertland.com, edumazet@...gle.com Subject: Re: [RFC net-next] ipv6: Support for anonymous tunnel decapsulation Le 26/08/2021 à 18:23, Justin Iurman a écrit : [snip] >>> Thoughts? >> I'm not sure to understand why the current code isn't enough. The fallback >> tunnels created by legacy IP tunnels drivers are able to receive and decapsulate >> any encapsulated packets. > > Because, right now, you need to use the ip6_tunnel module and explicitly configure a tunnel, as you described below. The goal of this patch is to provide a way to apply an ip6ip6 decapsulation *without* having to configure a tunnel. What is the difference between setting a sysctl somewhere and putting an interface up?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists