From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bill Fink Subject: Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 28282] New: forwarding turns autoconfiguration off Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 23:47:53 -0500 Message-ID: <20110208234753.48abd902.billfink@mindspring.com> References: <20110208133408.7d447e6a.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20110208.134421.39185637.davem@davemloft.net> <4D51BFCE.2070405@msgid.danisch.de> <20110208.143046.246534138.davem@davemloft.net> <20110208224411.GA9674@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Miller , hadmut@danisch.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, bugzilla-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org, bugme-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org To: Francois Romieu Return-path: Received: from elasmtp-galgo.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.61]:35594 "EHLO elasmtp-galgo.atl.sa.earthlink.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750815Ab1BIE6w (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Feb 2011 23:58:52 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20110208224411.GA9674@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Francois Romieu wrote: > David Miller : > > From: Hadmut Danisch > > Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2011 23:12:30 +0100 > > > > > On 08.02.2011 22:44, David Miller wrote: > > >> > > >> This is a case where we're probably just following what the RFC documents > > >> state we should do, which means unless you can provide clear reference to > > >> a specification that states we should behave otherwise this isn't changing. > > > > > > Could you cite where exactly this is stated in the RFC documents? > > > > I'm working on other bugs at the moment, so I am personally unable to > > help you with this at this time. Perhaps someone else can. > > This one MAY^W may be relevant (see http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4862.txt) : > > Thomson, et al. Standards Track [Page 3] > > RFC 4862 IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration September 2007 > [...] > The autoconfiguration process specified in this document applies only > to hosts and not routers. Since host autoconfiguration uses > information advertised by routers, routers will need to be configured > by some other means. However, it is expected that routers will > generate link-local addresses using the mechanism described in this > document. In addition, routers are expected to successfully pass the > Duplicate Address Detection procedure described in this document on > all addresses prior to assigning them to an interface. I believe there is a difference between being a router and merely being capable of forwarding IP packets. To me, a router participates in a routing protocol and/or advertises routes/prefixes. So perhaps Hadmut has a valid point that autoconfiguration should not depend on ip_forward being off, although I'm not sure what the appropriate alternate test for not being a router should be. -Bill