It was a simple idea -- save IPv6 configured addresses on a link down
so that IPv6 behaves similar to IPv4. As always the devil is in the
details and the IPv6 stack as too many behavioral differences from IPv4
making the simple idea more complicated than it needs to be.
The current implementation
From: David Ahern
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 20:56:12 -0700
> Dave: I realize this goes against your preference to keep routes cached
> on a down but this patch really emphasizes my point of all the
> dark corners to be handled.
I've learned my lesson, I never should have put the origin
On 4/25/16 1:26 PM, David Miller wrote:
From: David Ahern
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 20:56:12 -0700
Dave: I realize this goes against your preference to keep routes cached
on a down but this patch really emphasizes my point of all the
dark corners to be handled.
I've learned my les
From: David Ahern
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 13:40:26 -0600
> It's unfortunate you want to take that action. Last week I came across
> a prior attempt by Stephen to do this same thing -- keep IPv6
> addresses. That prior attempt was reverted by commit
> 73a8bd74e261. Cumulus, Brocade, and others clea
On 4/25/16 2:42 PM, David Miller wrote:
From: David Ahern
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 13:40:26 -0600
It's unfortunate you want to take that action. Last week I came across
a prior attempt by Stephen to do this same thing -- keep IPv6
addresses. That prior attempt was reverted by commit
73a8bd74e261
On 4/25/16, 1:42 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: David Ahern
> Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 13:40:26 -0600
>
>> It's unfortunate you want to take that action. Last week I came across
>> a prior attempt by Stephen to do this same thing -- keep IPv6
>> addresses. That prior attempt was reverted by commit
On 04/25/2016 11:03 PM, David Ahern wrote:
> On 4/25/16 2:42 PM, David Miller wrote:
>> From: David Ahern
>> Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 13:40:26 -0600
>>
>>> It's unfortunate you want to take that action. Last week I came across
>>> a prior attempt by Stephen to do this same thing -- keep IPv6
>>> add
From: David Ahern
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 16:03:40 -0600
> Rather than focusing on my mistakes, why not see the commitment on
> following through with this change?
I do not question the amount of time and effort invested.
I question whether the change was truly ready yet, and my
conclusion right
From: Mike Manning
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 01:57:20 +0100
> It would be great if this could be reconsidered
If you guys start ganging up on me, I will set you all to ignore.
This is my last warning.
Please respect my decision and try to shore up this change properly
for 4.7.0
Thank you.
