Actually I am not so sure, there is no defined semantic of flush. I would
be ok with all three solutions: leave it as is, always add link-local
address (it does not matter if we don't have a link-local address on
that interface, as a global scoped one is just fine enough) or make flush not
remove the link-local address (but this seems a bit too special cased for me).
1) In case if we leave it as it is, there is rfc 6724 rule 2 to be
considered ( previously rfc 3484)
Rule 2: Prefer appropriate scope.
If Scope(SA) < Scope(SB): If Scope(SA) < Scope(D), then prefer SB and
otherwise prefer SA. Similarly, if Scope(SB) < Scope(SA): If
Scope(SB) < Scope(D), then prefer SA and otherwise prefer SB.
Test:
Destination: fe80::2(LS)
Candidate Source Addresses: 3ffe::1(GS) or fec0::1(SS) or LLA(LS)
Result: LLA(LS)
Scope(LLA) < Scope(fec0::1): If Scope(LLA) < Scope(fe80::2), no,
prefer LLA
Scope(LLA) < Scope(3ffe::1): If Scope(LLA) < Scope(fe80::2), no,
prefer LLA
Now the above test fails since the route itself is not present, and the
test assumes that the route gets added since the LLA is not removed
during the test
2) having a LLA always helps in NDP i think
3) making flush not remove link-local address will be chnaging
functionality of ip flush command
Regards,
Sohny
Greetings,
Hannes
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
