From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vlad Yasevich Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] bonding: move IPv6 support into a separate kernel module Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 15:17:53 -0500 Message-ID: <49A6F8F1.4060104@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> <49A6F50E.3070100@hp.com> <2FBB0F50-8763-4A17-8734-5940FC3FF26A@oracle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Brian Haley , Jay Vosburgh , David Miller , arvidjaar@mail.ru, 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 g1t0026.austin.hp.com ([15.216.28.33]:10840 "EHLO g1t0026.austin.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751771AbZBZUR5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Feb 2009 15:17:57 -0500 In-Reply-To: <2FBB0F50-8763-4A17-8734-5940FC3FF26A@oracle.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Chuck Lever wrote: > On Feb 26, 2009, at Feb 26, 2009, 3:01 PM, Brian Haley wrote: >> 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. > > Sorry, I got my logic backwards. If IPV6ONLY is intentionally cleared > on an AF_INET6 socket, it should still be able to handle AF_INET traffic. Yes. :-) -vlad > > -- > Chuck Lever > chuck[dot]lever[at]oracle[dot]com >