From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki Subject: Re: ipv6: why disable ipv6 on last address removal? Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 16:39:15 +0900 Message-ID: <4B1F5423.4070109@linux-ipv6.org> References: <20091208192046.GA5649@midget.suse.cz> <20091208.125611.135547597.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: jbohac@suse.cz, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from 94.43.138.210.xn.2iij.net ([210.138.43.94]:39364 "EHLO mail.st-paulia.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752016AbZLIHjV (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Dec 2009 02:39:21 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20091208.125611.135547597.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hello. Well, AFAIK, it is basically ancient thing. Some (rather new) paramters are exactly related bringing up each interface. Such parameters should be set _before_ it is brought up. For now, people can do this using the "default" value. We might have rtnetlink interface for up/down interface, allowing userspace to send related parameters as well. Regards, --yoshfuji David Miller wrote: > From: Jiri Bohac > Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 20:20:46 +0100 > >> Is there any reason why inet6_addr_del needs to sets how=1 and >> disable IPv6 even more than "ifconfig down" does? > > All I can say is that this behavior is definitely on purpose, although > I don't exactly remember why. > > And although it helps you, it could also break things for other people > who expect the current behavior. > > Some people definitely expect no IPV6 at all in any way shape or > form if they have not assigned IPV6 addresses to an interface.