From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki Subject: Re: [RFC] GTSM for IPv6 Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:27:24 +0900 Message-ID: <4BA71BDC.1080609@linux-ipv6.org> References: <20100319095640.42c8d82d@nehalam> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki To: Stephen Hemminger Return-path: Received: from 94.43.138.210.xn.2iij.net ([210.138.43.94]:40302 "EHLO mail.st-paulia.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753512Ab0CVH1o (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Mar 2010 03:27:44 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20100319095640.42c8d82d@nehalam> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: (2010/03/20 1:56), Stephen Hemminger wrote: > Also RFC doesn't explicitly address GTSM on IPV6. > Maybe the RFC editors think the problem will magically no longer exist > in IPv6 world because everyone will be using IPsec. > --- > include/linux/in6.h | 3 +++ > include/linux/ipv6.h | 3 ++- > net/ipv6/ipv6_sockglue.c | 12 ++++++++++++ > net/ipv6/tcp_ipv6.c | 17 ++++++++++++++--- > 4 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) Why don't we have code for other protocols such as UDP etc? We already have similar protection in NDP, It seem to make sense. And, as many other socket options (such as IPV6_UNICAST_HOPS etc.) do, please accept value of -1 to set the system's default (0 so far). x < -1: return an error of EINVAL x == -1: use kernel default 0 <= x <= 255: use x x >= 256: return an error of EINVAL We may also want to have sysctl for it. Regrads, --yoshfuji