From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Hemminger Subject: Re: [RFC] ipv6: don't flush routes when setting loopback down Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 12:01:23 -0800 Message-ID: <20110119120123.40974cbe@s6510> References: <20101209.122033.183046393.davem@davemloft.net> <20101216132812.2d7fd885@nehalam> <20101216.182656.226781473.davem@davemloft.net> <20110119191823.GC8442@midget.suse.cz> <20110119113817.0819ddf1@s6510> <20110119195632.GA27574@midget.suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ebiederm@xmission.com, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, stable@kernel.org, maheshkelkar@gmail.com, brian.haley@hp.com, David Miller , lorenzo@google.com To: Jiri Bohac Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20110119195632.GA27574@midget.suse.cz> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: stable-bounces@linux.kernel.org Errors-To: stable-bounces@linux.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 20:56:32 +0100 Jiri Bohac wrote: > On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 11:38:17AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > Jiri Bohac wrote: > > > I have the feeling that Eric's patch is the safest solution we > > > have so far: > > Eric's patch has other regressions, see the discussion. > > What regression do you mean? I have read the whole discussion > thoroughly. You only say in one message that deleting ::1 would > propagate to routing daemons. And Eric correctly stated that > people couldn't hit this, because deleting ::1 would break > things on its own. > > Is there a real problem with Eric's fix? > > Thanks, > If address is assigned to loopback interface (other than ::1) then Eric's fix doesn't work. It is common to use an additional address on the lo device when doing routing protocols.