From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Greear Subject: Re: [net-next] ipv6: Enable netlink notification for tentative addresses. Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 14:19:30 -0700 Message-ID: <4C76DA62.8040109@candelatech.com> References: <20100825.212456.71107442.davem@davemloft.net> <4C76B770.4030800@candelatech.com> <4C76C73F.4080206@hp.com> <20100826.131801.246519955.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: brian.haley@hp.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from mail.candelatech.com ([208.74.158.172]:46726 "EHLO ns3.lanforge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752690Ab0HZVTe (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:19:34 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20100826.131801.246519955.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 08/26/2010 01:18 PM, David Miller wrote: > From: Brian Haley > Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:57:51 -0400 > >> But then we get a message for an address that can't be used because >> it hasn't passed DAD, I'm not so sure that is a good thing, >> especially if we don't get notified when it passes DAD. > > I think that we shouldn't send notifications for an address that can't > even be used. So essentially I argue against this patch in any form :) In our case, we enable IPv6 in user-space, and then we want to get some immediate indication that indeed the process is working as expected. In other cases, we want to remove all IPv6 addresses, so if we have not even been notified that the IP exists, then we cannot know how to delete it. In my patch, we still get the update when DAD completes, so applications can take note of the flags if they care about the details. We've been running this patch for several years, and it has not caused any obvious problems with other tools, so I think it's safe enough. Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com