From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Edward Cree Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2] geneve: fix IPv6 remote address reporting Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 16:14:11 +0100 Message-ID: <572CB4C3.3040708@solarflare.com> References: <572CAA09.302@solarflare.com> <20160506144345.GC11058@orbyte.nwl.cc> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Phil Sutter , Stephen Hemminger , netdev , "John W. Linville" Return-path: Received: from nbfkord-smmo04.seg.att.com ([209.65.160.86]:3647 "EHLO nbfkord-smmo04.seg.att.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751111AbcEFPO2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 May 2016 11:14:28 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20160506144345.GC11058@orbyte.nwl.cc> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 06/05/16 15:43, Phil Sutter wrote: > On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 03:28:25PM +0100, Edward Cree wrote: >> Since we can only configure unicast, we probably want to be able to >> display unicast, rather than multicast. > Furthermore, the kernel even rejects multicast peer addresses. Yes, but a future kernel might not, and iproute2 is meant to be forward- compatible. > Why do you then propose a dubious fix to a dubious check instead of > getting rid of it in the first place? Because John Linville clearly had some reason for putting a check there, and he probably knows better than me. Chesterton's fence. -Ed