From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Brian Haley Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] bonding: move IPv6 support into a separate kernel module Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 15:01:18 -0500 Message-ID: <49A6F50E.3070100@hp.com> References: <49A5ADB3.2010709@hp.com> <28797.1235599858@death.nxdomain.ibm.com> <20090225.141430.166906161.davem@davemloft.net> <49A6C6ED.3070801@hp.com> <22876.1235672073@death.nxdomain.ibm.com> <49A6ED6D.3090508@hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jay Vosburgh , David Miller , arvidjaar@mail.ru, vladislav.yasevich@hp.com, tytso@mit.edu, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, rjw@sisk.pl, netdev@vger.kernel.org, bonding-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, jamagallon@ono.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Chuck Lever Return-path: Received: from g1t0028.austin.hp.com ([15.216.28.35]:13292 "EHLO g1t0028.austin.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753093AbZBZUCW (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Feb 2009 15:02:22 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Chuck Lever wrote: >> I think changing ipv6 to support a disable_ipv6 module parameter like >> Vlad suggested would work, as long as we're not worried about someone >> opening an AF_INET6 socket - even if they do they won't get anywhere. > > In this case, if IPV6ONLY is set on an AF_INET6 listener, it should > still get AF_INET traffic, correct? No, it should get nothing, and a send should get ENETUNREACH. -Briian