From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki Subject: Re: [ipv6] valid_lft and active connections Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 20:41:50 +0900 Message-ID: <1308051710.3424.15.camel@takos> References: <4DF73A6D.1050809@samba.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-2022-JP" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org To: "Stefan (metze) Metzmacher" Return-path: Received: from 94.43.138.210.xn.2iij.net ([210.138.43.94]:38954 "EHLO mail.st-paulia.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756083Ab1FNLu5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Jun 2011 07:50:57 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4DF73A6D.1050809@samba.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hello. Stefan (metze) Metzmacher wrote: > If I use ipv6 addresses with valid_lft != forever, the ipv6 addresses > are removed from the interface if the valid_lft expires, even if there're > established connection which use with address. > > Would it be possible keep the address until the last active connection > is closed? Otherwise the usable of the privacy extensions will make > very long living tcp connections impossible. > I cannot imagine why you do not hear RAs before the address expires. And well, I don't think it is a good idea because it is not what "valid lifetime" means. We have 3 states: 1) time <= preferred lifetime 2) preferred lifetime < time <= valid lifetime 3) valid lifetime < lifetime You can make new connection during the period of 1 and you can continue using that connection during the period of 1 and 2. Ask network administrator to advertise longer "valid" lifetime, if needed, and you may want to make net.ipv6.conf.*.max_addresses larger. > It would be also ok to add a new special value "used" similar to "forever", > which triggers the modified behavior. ??? --yoshfuji