From: Brian Haley <brian.haley@hp.com>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Cc: maze@google.com, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: ipv6: Allow netlink to set IPv6 address scope
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 17:32:06 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4E9C9ED6.9080601@hp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr0mnSM5EyVhJDPyq3Obe2WNiEjgQ=0uQ-r39Fg9WTsVmw@mail.gmail.com>
On 10/16/2011 10:26 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> RFC 3879 deprecated site-local addresses because the were non-unique and thus
> ambiguous, and if they leak, they cause problems. This is not an issue
> in the use
> case I presented, because the addresses are syntactically global
> addresses - they
> just don't have global reachability.
Not very global then :(
>> The MIF problem statement (in the RFC editor's queue) talks about this problem,
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mif-problem-statement-15 - perhaps it's
>> better to work there to develop a more generic solution (using DHCPv6, RA
>> options, etc) before making this change?
>
> I don't think it's a good idea. Waiting for an IETF working group to
> produce a standard
> when it doesn't even have a problem statement finalized could take years.
It would be useful to give some input there, even if the Linux-specific
implementation of any standard plays with bits in the ifaddr.
> Is there another reason why we shouldn't enable userspace to do what it wants?
In my opinion it just feels like a hack, because things won't work when your
wifi attaches to a walled garden, or there's a third interface - who wins the
tiebreaker?
I do see your point that it will help with the problem you're trying to solve,
hopefully someone else will offer their opinion.
-Brian
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-10-17 21:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-10-05 20:15 [PATCH] net: ipv6: Allow netlink to set IPv6 address scope Lorenzo Colitti
2011-10-10 16:16 ` Brian Haley
2011-10-13 23:55 ` Lorenzo Colitti
2011-10-14 20:14 ` Brian Haley
2011-10-14 22:32 ` Lorenzo Colitti
2011-10-17 0:45 ` Brian Haley
2011-10-17 2:26 ` Lorenzo Colitti
2011-10-17 21:32 ` Brian Haley [this message]
2011-10-21 4:25 ` Maciej Żenczykowski
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4E9C9ED6.9080601@hp.com \
--to=brian.haley@hp.com \
--cc=lorenzo@google.com \
--cc=maze@google.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).