From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hannes Frederic Sowa Subject: Re: [patch net-next] ipv6: allow userspace to create address with IFLA_F_TEMPORARY flag Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 17:48:35 +0100 Message-ID: <20131027164835.GB4714@order.stressinduktion.org> References: <1382622355-6500-1-git-send-email-jiri@resnulli.us> <20131027132941.GA1443@minipsycho.orion> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Vladislav Yasevich , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , David Miller , kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, jmorris@namei.org, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, kaber@trash.net, thaller@redhat.com, Stephen Hemminger To: Jiri Pirko Return-path: Received: from order.stressinduktion.org ([87.106.68.36]:60302 "EHLO order.stressinduktion.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754030Ab3J0Qsh (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Oct 2013 12:48:37 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131027132941.GA1443@minipsycho.orion> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Jiri! On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 02:29:41PM +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: > The idea is to provide possibility to do address configuration not in > kernel but rather in userspace (as it is done for example in NetworkManager) > > Maybe I'm missing something, but why is it problem to have the > possibility to set lifetime even for temporary prefix? There is no problem setting the lifetime for a temporary prefix (in contrary, it needs one) but the code paths designed for IFA_F_TEMPORARY may not fiddle with it. This needs to be checked. In this constellation addrconf_verify does not refresh the privacy address when its preferred lifetime is expired, if you create the address by only passing IFA_F_TEMPORARY to rtm_newaddr (as Vlad pointed out). E.g. NetworkManager has to take care about that, then. A temporary address is also bound to a non-privacy public address so it's lifetime is determined by its lifetime (e.g. if you switch the network and don't receive on-link information for that prefix any more). NetworkManager would have to take care about that, too. It is just a question of what NetworkManager wants to handle itself or lets the kernel handle for it. Greetings, Hannes