From: Brian Haley <brian.haley@hp.com>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Cc: maze@google.com, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: ipv6: Allow netlink to set IPv6 address scope
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 17:32:06 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4E9C9ED6.9080601@hp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr0mnSM5EyVhJDPyq3Obe2WNiEjgQ=0uQ-r39Fg9WTsVmw@mail.gmail.com>
On 10/16/2011 10:26 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> RFC 3879 deprecated site-local addresses because the were non-unique and thus
> ambiguous, and if they leak, they cause problems. This is not an issue
> in the use
> case I presented, because the addresses are syntactically global
> addresses - they
> just don't have global reachability.
Not very global then :(
>> The MIF problem statement (in the RFC editor's queue) talks about this problem,
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mif-problem-statement-15 - perhaps it's
>> better to work there to develop a more generic solution (using DHCPv6, RA
>> options, etc) before making this change?
>
> I don't think it's a good idea. Waiting for an IETF working group to
> produce a standard
> when it doesn't even have a problem statement finalized could take years.
It would be useful to give some input there, even if the Linux-specific
implementation of any standard plays with bits in the ifaddr.
> Is there another reason why we shouldn't enable userspace to do what it wants?
In my opinion it just feels like a hack, because things won't work when your
wifi attaches to a walled garden, or there's a third interface - who wins the
tiebreaker?
I do see your point that it will help with the problem you're trying to solve,
hopefully someone else will offer their opinion.
-Brian
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-10-17 21:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-10-05 20:15 [PATCH] net: ipv6: Allow netlink to set IPv6 address scope Lorenzo Colitti
2011-10-10 16:16 ` Brian Haley
2011-10-13 23:55 ` Lorenzo Colitti
2011-10-14 20:14 ` Brian Haley
2011-10-14 22:32 ` Lorenzo Colitti
2011-10-17 0:45 ` Brian Haley
2011-10-17 2:26 ` Lorenzo Colitti
2011-10-17 21:32 ` Brian Haley [this message]
2011-10-21 4:25 ` Maciej Żenczykowski
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4E9C9ED6.9080601@hp.com \
--to=brian.haley@hp.com \
--cc=lorenzo@google.com \
--cc=maze@google.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.