From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Geert Hendrickx Subject: Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 28512] New: IPv6 SLAAC address preferred over static one as source address Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 09:31:39 +0200 Message-ID: <20110330073139.GA8190@boris.ghen.be> References: <20110207152048.22c51184.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20110329.172000.102543782.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, bugzilla-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org, bugme-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from brigitte.telenet-ops.be ([195.130.137.66]:58259 "EHLO brigitte.telenet-ops.be" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752641Ab1C3Hbq (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Mar 2011 03:31:46 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110329.172000.102543782.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 17:20:00 -0700, David Miller wrote: > This is debatable. > > One could just as easily say that an address with a shorter preferred > lifetime has been revalidated more recently, and therefore is more > likely to be uptodate, valid, and lead to a usable path. There we're at "most recent" again. In practice, this will often be a SLAAC address, which will rarely be preferred over a staticly configured one. > I think the lack of specification for the final tie-breaker in the RFC > was intentional :-) > > The specification has to address this, and until the situation is more > clear cut than it is now I don't see any benefit for changing Linux's > behavior. Especially since there is a configuration based workaround > which works for people in the short-term. What workaround are you referring to? Geert -- geert.hendrickx.be :: geert@hendrickx.be :: PGP: 0xC4BB9E9F This e-mail was composed using 100% recycled spam messages!