From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vlad Yasevich Subject: Re: [PATCH] IPv6: optionaly validate RAs on raw sockets Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 12:50:12 -0400 Message-ID: <46950A44.2040808@hp.com> References: <200707111919.11746@auguste.remlab.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: David Stevens , davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?YOSHIFUJI_Hideaki_/_=3F=3F=3F?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=3F?= To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=E9mi_Denis-Courmont?= Return-path: Received: from atlrel8.hp.com ([156.153.255.206]:47739 "EHLO atlrel8.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751459AbXGKQwI (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Jul 2007 12:52:08 -0400 In-Reply-To: <200707111919.11746@auguste.remlab.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org R=E9mi Denis-Courmont wrote: > Le mercredi 11 juillet 2007, David Stevens a =E9crit : >> That sounds like a good idea to me (FWIW), >> though I also still think a simple raw-socket >> application would do it just fine, possibly with >> no kernel modification at all. >> But since the kernel wouldn't be maintaining >> the DNS info, which was my real objection to the >> original version, netlink would work well too. >=20 > One remaining corner case is NFS/IPv6 root, whereby userland won't ha= ve=20 > a chance to start before the network, and hence may miss the solicite= d=20 > RA. Or would it? By default, the next unsolicited RA can be anytime=20 > from now to after 10 minutes, so that's not sufficient. I wouldn't=20 > personnaly care, but... >=20 You've got the same issue with the socket option approach. -vlad