From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Greear Subject: Re: [RFC] IPV6 address management Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:11:32 -0800 Message-ID: <49666C04.6050605@candelatech.com> References: <20090108093430.0f966738@extreme> <20090108.112420.102641584.davem@davemloft.net> <20090108121220.789325a6@extreme> <20090108.125830.142298950.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: shemminger@vyatta.com, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from mail.candelatech.com ([208.74.158.172]:50541 "EHLO ns3.lanforge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756273AbZAHVLm (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jan 2009 16:11:42 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20090108.125830.142298950.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: David Miller wrote: > From: Stephen Hemminger > Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 12:12:20 -0800 > >> What about this? >> >> If it works (still testing), I'll submit it. > > So what is your plan? > > Make the routing daemons depend upon the non-default > behavior in order to act correctly? They could check and take corrective action or tell the user to set it one way or another. Robust and complex apps already have to check all sorts of things anyway. > Or is it to gradually get people to use the non-default > (via distribution sysctl settings etc.) and eventually > make it the default? > > I disagree with both plans, and with that the facility > is basically useless. > > We absolutely have to live with the behavior we have now, > and for a long time if not forever. It could be argued we need to have the default behaviour stay the same, but that's no reason to keep things difficult for people/programs flexible enough to deal with change. Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com