From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6] ipv4: sysctl to block responding on down interface Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 13:58:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20100630.135816.106800276.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20100611084854.0680c014@nehalam> <20100622.101537.245382806.davem@davemloft.net> <20100630135535.0e3a5ea1@nehalam> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: joakim.tjernlund@transmode.se, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: shemminger@vyatta.com Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:45621 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755243Ab0F3U6D (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Jun 2010 16:58:03 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20100630135535.0e3a5ea1@nehalam> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Stephen Hemminger Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 13:55:35 -0700 >> The fact that the syctl knob, when enabled, can't even function properly >> in this "multiple interfaces with same address" case is another reason I >> have decided to not apply this. > > We already have sysctl knobs that exist to work around broken printer TCP, > middleboxes and other broken stacks; my opinion this is just another one > of those types of workarounds. But that sysctl knob for the printer workaround doesn't break legitimate configurations like this one does.