From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/7 v2]IPv6:netfilter: defragment Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:27:24 +0100 Message-ID: <4B9E5FEC.9010002@trash.net> References: <4B88BE30.80206@cn.fujitsu.com> <4B97D34C.4020509@gmail.com> <4B98B4FC.50904@cn.fujitsu.com> <4B9B9766.3090200@linux-ipv6.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Shan Wei , YOSHIFUJI Hideaki , David Miller , Alexey Dobriyan , Yasuyuki KOZAKAI , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org To: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:46708 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965319Ab0COQ1a (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:27:30 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4B9B9766.3090200@linux-ipv6.org> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki wrote: > (2010/03/11 18:16), Shan Wei wrote: >>> On the other hand, I'd even say we should NOT send >>> icmp here (at least by default) because standard routers >>> never send such packet. >> >> Yes=EF=BC=8Cfor routers, the patch-set does not send icmp message to >> source host. It only does on destination host with IPv6 connection >> track enable. >=20 > Please make it optional (via parameter) at least. The ICMP messages are only sent if the packet is destined for the local host, similar to what IPv6 defrag would do if conntrack wouldn't be used. So this patch increases consistency, why should we make this optional? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-dev= el" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html