From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hannes Frederic Sowa Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] IPv6: enable bind() to assign an anycast address Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 20:25:15 +0100 Message-ID: <20140217192515.GG22833@order.stressinduktion.org> References: <20140217.001545.981758741332832466.davem@davemloft.net> <20140217093231.GA4609@cpaasch-mac> <20140217.141949.1387848185062797150.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, christoph.paasch@uclouvain.be, fx.lebail@yahoo.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, eric.dumazet@gmail.com To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from order.stressinduktion.org ([87.106.68.36]:33282 "EHLO order.stressinduktion.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754371AbaBQTZR (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Feb 2014 14:25:17 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140217.141949.1387848185062797150.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 02:19:49PM -0500, David Miller wrote: > From: Alexey Kuznetsov > Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 14:02:02 +0400 > > > Hello! > > > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Christoph Paasch > > wrote: > >> I don't have strong opinions for or against this patch. > >> > >> I was only involved in the original thread because F-X claimed that > >> draft-iab-anycast-arch-implications (now RFC 7094) allows the use of anycast > >> addresses for TCP, which is not what RFC 7094 is saying. There is no > >> recommendation concerning TCP in the RFC and the situation is rather unclear. > > > > The same is here. > > > > Using anycast as source or bind address, why not? > > > > Use of anycast with TCP? Logically impossible, ergo prohibited. > > If someone wants to play with fire, the option can be left hidden behind > > a sysctl disabled by default. > > Agreed. If a knob seems necessary I would vote for per address flags on those anycast addresses (via setsockopt and netlink) so an application can decide itself if it wants to do so. Greetings, Hannes