From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hannes Frederic Sowa Subject: Re: why are IPv6 addresses removed on link down Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 18:34:02 +0100 Message-ID: <1421170442.23374.3.camel@stressinduktion.org> References: <54B50C71.7090007@miraclelinux.com> <1421152613.13626.24.camel@redhat.com> <54B53187.7080306@gmail.com> <20150113.122542.815831933030545121.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: dsahern@gmail.com, hideaki.yoshifuji@miraclelinux.com, stephen@networkplumber.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.27]:37845 "EHLO out3-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751190AbbAMReG (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jan 2015 12:34:06 -0500 Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 828C120F03 for ; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 12:34:05 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <20150113.122542.815831933030545121.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Di, 2015-01-13 at 12:25 -0500, David Miller wrote: > From: David Ahern > Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 07:53:59 -0700 > > > Bottom line is there a harm in removing the flush? If there is no harm > > will mainline kernel take a patch to do that or is your backward > > compatibility concern enough to block it? > > Backward compatibility trumps all other concerns here, and I say is > enough to block changing the behavior. One which we've had for more > than a decade. Totally agreed, a new sysctl will definitely be needed and the default should be the old behavior. Otherwise we cannot do it.