David S. Miller wrote:
From: Matyas Koszik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 10:08:01 +0200 (CEST)
Then it maybe shouldn't affect the flow of packets while the
interface is down - or is it also something people depend on?
Yes, people probably do depend upon it.
Not that my voice we
David S. Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I agree, it should behave just like ipv4.
AOL
That would've made quite a few races that we had to fix non-existant
by definition :)
--
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Home Page: http://gond
From: David Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 14:33:38 -0700
> > > Addresses are owned by the "host" not a particular device, even
> > > though they are assosciated with a particular interface.
> > >
> > > Linux defaults to using the host based addressing model instead of the
> >
> > Addresses are owned by the "host" not a particular device, even
> > though they are assosciated with a particular interface.
> >
> > Linux defaults to using the host based addressing model instead of the
> > interface based addressing model.
> It is true for IPv4, but IPv6 addresses are removed
Addresses are owned by the "host" not a particular device, even
though they are assosciated with a particular interface.
Linux defaults to using the host based addressing model instead of the
interface based addressing model.
It is true for IPv4, but IPv6 addresses are removed when interface g
From: Matyas Koszik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 10:08:01 +0200 (CEST)
> Then it maybe shouldn't affect the flow of packets while the
> interface is down - or is it also something people depend on?
Yes, people probably do depend upon it.
Addresses are owned by the "host" not a part
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, David S. Miller wrote:
> From: Matyas Koszik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 09:44:55 +0200 (CEST)
>
> > ... but it doesn't, so those addresses are treated as local which is bad.
>
> No, shutting down an interface should not remove ipv4 addresses. The
> user mus
From: Matyas Koszik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 09:44:55 +0200 (CEST)
> ... but it doesn't, so those addresses are treated as local which is bad.
No, shutting down an interface should not remove ipv4 addresses. The
user must explicitly remove them.
This behavior has been around l
... but it doesn't, so those addresses are treated as local which is bad.
This problem doesn't exist with ipv6 and the patch is based on the solution
found there.
--- linux-2.4.32.orig/net/ipv4/devinet 2004-08-08 01:26:06.0 +0200
+++ linux-2.4.32/net/ipv4/devinet.c 2006-04-11 06:21
