From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Subject: Re: [RFC v2 2/4] net: enables interface option to skip IP Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 12:33:35 -0800 Message-ID: References: <1392433180-16052-1-git-send-email-mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> <1392433180-16052-3-git-send-email-mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> <1392668638.21106.5.camel@dcbw.local> <1392828325.21976.6.camel@dcbw.local> <1392857777.22693.14.camel@dcbw.local> <1393266120.8041.19.camel@dcbw.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: Zoltan Kiss , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "David S. Miller" , Alexey Kuznetsov , James Morris , Hideaki YOSHIFUJI , Patrick McHardy To: Dan Williams Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1393266120.8041.19.camel@dcbw.local> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Dan Williams wrote: > My use-case would simply be to have an analogue for the disable_ipv6 > case. In the future I expect more people will want to disable IPv4 as > they move to IPv6. If you don't have something like disable_ipv4, then > there's no way to ensure that some random program or something doesn't > set up IPv4 stuff that you don't want. > > Same thing for IPv6; some people really don't want IPv6 enabled on an > interface no matter what; they don't want an IPv6LL address assigned, > they don't want kernel SLAAC, they want to ensure that *nothing* > IPv6-related gets done for that interface. The same can be true for > IPv4, but we don't have a way of doing that right now. I'll add this to my queue. Luis