2018-02-27, 10:47:08 -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: Sabrina Dubroca
> Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 15:13:28 +0100
>
> > 2018-02-26, 12:11:27 -0500, David Miller wrote:
> >> From: Sabrina Dubroca
> >> Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 17:56:19 +0100
> >>
> >> That's completely different to this case, which i
From: Sabrina Dubroca
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 15:13:28 +0100
> 2018-02-26, 12:11:27 -0500, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Sabrina Dubroca
>> 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 the
2018-02-26, 12:11:27 -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: Sabrina Dubroca
> Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 17:56:19 +0100
>
> > 2018-02-26, 10:57:11 -0500, David Miller wrote:
> >> Userland is now repsonsible for implementing correct behavior when it
> >> takes over this task, and therefore the kernel has
From: Sabrina Dubroca
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 17:56:19 +0100
> 2018-02-26, 10:57:11 -0500, David Miller wrote:
>> Userland is now repsonsible for implementing correct behavior when it
>> takes over this task, and therefore the kernel has no say in the
>> matter of proper ipv6 neighbor discovery an
2018-02-26, 10:57:11 -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: Sabrina Dubroca
> Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 16:41:32 +0100
>
> > What are you concerned about, if we let userspace set this flag?
>
> I am concerned that the kernel is no longer in charge of making sure
> that all of the RFC rules are met in t
From: Sabrina Dubroca
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 16:41:32 +0100
> What are you concerned about, if we let userspace set this flag?
I am concerned that the kernel is no longer in charge of making sure
that all of the RFC rules are met in this area.
Userland is now repsonsible for implementing correc
2018-02-21, 15:34:21 -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: Sabrina Dubroca
> Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 19:17:17 +0100
>
> > 2018-02-20, 10:25:41 -0700, David Ahern wrote:
> >> On 2/20/18 9:43 AM, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
> >> > According to RFC 4429 (section 3.1), adding new IPv6 addresses as
> >> > opti
From: Sabrina Dubroca
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 19:17:17 +0100
> 2018-02-20, 10:25:41 -0700, David Ahern wrote:
>> On 2/20/18 9:43 AM, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
>> > According to RFC 4429 (section 3.1), adding new IPv6 addresses as
>> > optimistic addresses is acceptable, as long as the implementation
2018-02-20, 10:25:41 -0700, David Ahern wrote:
> On 2/20/18 9:43 AM, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
> > According to RFC 4429 (section 3.1), adding new IPv6 addresses as
> > optimistic addresses is acceptable, as long as the implementation
> > follows some rules:
> >
> >* Optimistic DAD SHOULD only be
On 2/20/18 9:43 AM, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
> According to RFC 4429 (section 3.1), adding new IPv6 addresses as
> optimistic addresses is acceptable, as long as the implementation
> follows some rules:
>
>* Optimistic DAD SHOULD only be used when the implementation is aware
> that the a
According to RFC 4429 (section 3.1), adding new IPv6 addresses as
optimistic addresses is acceptable, as long as the implementation
follows some rules:
* Optimistic DAD SHOULD only be used when the implementation is aware
that the address is based on a most likely unique interface
11 matches
Mail list logo
