From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Hemminger Subject: Re: [stable] [RFC] ipv6: don't flush routes when setting loopback down Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 20:21:14 +1100 Message-ID: <20110123202114.6e41ec58@s6510> References: <20110122.145438.193725532.davem@davemloft.net> <901400353.32377.1295757672292.JavaMail.root@tahiti.vyatta.com> <20110122.214254.226765382.davem@davemloft.net> <20110123192416.73cd7521@s6510> <20110123192624.5cfe33d0@s6510> <20110123091531.GQ12837@1wt.eu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: jbohac@suse.cz, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, stable@kernel.org, stephen.hemminger@vyatta.com, ebiederm@xmission.com, brian.haley@hp.com, lorenzo@google.com, David Miller , maheshkelkar@gmail.com To: Willy Tarreau Return-path: Received: from mail.vyatta.com ([76.74.103.46]:45766 "EHLO mail.vyatta.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751261Ab1AWJV1 (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 Jan 2011 04:21:27 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20110123091531.GQ12837@1wt.eu> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 10:15:32 +0100 Willy Tarreau wrote: > [ first, is there a reason we have stable@ CCed on this thread ? ] > > On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 07:26:24PM +1100, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > > You are probably so upset because I stepped on code you worked hard > > > on. But the IPv6 semantics should not have been different from IPv4 > > > and the disable_ipv6 flag was a poor API choice as well. Legacy > > > API's suck, I don't expect perfection but it should be possible > > > to make a working version that: > > > > > > Allows disabling IPv6 completely on an interface > > > AND Has the same address and route semantics for both > > > IPv4 and IPv6. > > > > Also for application sanity, Linux should behave the same as BSD > > Stephen, > > while I agree with all the points you made, David is right in that we > can't use a fix for a bug as a justification for breaking something > that worked for other people. It simply means that everything that was > merged since the first regression was introduced should be reverted > and reworked until a more satisfying solution is found. > > Otherwise users lose trust and you have to deal with much more cases > when users report issues. > > If the bug is caused by a deep design issue, then maybe a development > branch should be dedicated to it so that the persons affected by it I made my attempt at fixing the issue, others can attack that mud pit.