2018-02-27, 10:47:08 -0500, David Miller wrote: > From: Sabrina Dubroca <s...@queasysnail.net> > Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 15:13:28 +0100 > > > 2018-02-26, 12:11:27 -0500, David Miller wrote: > >> From: Sabrina Dubroca <s...@queasysnail.net> > >> Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 17:56:19 +0100 > >> > >> That's completely different to this case, which is a bonfide explicit > >> allowance for userspace to take over these fundamental protocol tasks > >> from the kernel. > > > > This is not letting userspace take over. On the contrary, it allows > > userspace to take advantage of the kernel's DAD, without suffering the > > delay. The alternative, without optimistic DAD, would be to completely > > disable DAD done by the kernel. > > > > This follows RFC 4429, which explicitly allows optimistic DAD for > > addresses generated by (among other mechanisms) DHCPv6. > > Fair enough. > > We can resume this conversation if and when problems pop up in the > future :-)
Hehe :) Thanks, I'll submit a v2 with the changes (the other) David asked for. -- Sabrina
