On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 04:09:57PM -0500, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
> Neil Horman wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 01:38:57AM +0900, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 wrote:
>>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Wed, 9 Jan 2008 16:36:56 +0100), Karsten
>>> Keil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
>>>
So I think we
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 03:32:12PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Karsten Keil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 16:36:56 +0100
>
> >If the address is a link-local address formed from an interface
> >identifier based on the hardware address, which is supposed to be
> >uni
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 09:26:53PM +0100, Karsten Keil wrote:
> >
> > Reading the section you reference, we do follow all the MUST requirements,
> > and
> > we log an error. Given that the disable section is a SHOULD, I think we
> > can at
> > least be somewhat more restrictive in our imple
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:55:44 -0800 (PST)),
David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> Because of the above, the existing behavior must still stay the
> default. I hope this is your plan.
>
> By default Linux will not implement this SHOULD, it's a security
> issue.
From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 08:46:55 +0900 (JST)
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:32:12 -0800 (PST)),
> David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
>
> > I question any RFC mandate that shuts down IP communication on a node
> > bec
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:32:12 -0800 (PST)),
David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> I question any RFC mandate that shuts down IP communication on a node
> because of packets received from remote systems.
RFC4862 tell us that we SHOULD disable IP communication.
(I
From: Karsten Keil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 16:36:56 +0100
>If the address is a link-local address formed from an interface
>identifier based on the hardware address, which is supposed to be
>uniquely assigned (e.g., EUI-64 for an Ethernet interface), IP
>operation
Neil Horman wrote:
On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 01:38:57AM +0900, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 wrote:
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Wed, 9 Jan 2008 16:36:56 +0100), Karsten Keil
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
So I think we should disable the interface now, if DAD fails on a
hardware based LLA.
I don'
On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 01:40:51AM +0900, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Thu, 10 Jan 2008 01:38:57 +0900 (JST)),
> YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
>
> > - we could have "dad_reaction" interface variable and
> > > 1: disable interface
> >
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 11:17:48AM -0500, Neil Horman wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 04:36:56PM +0100, Karsten Keil wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I tried to run the 1.5.0 Beta2 TAHI Selftest on recent Linux kernel.
> > It fails in the Stateless Address Autoconfiguration section with
> > 6 tests.
> > T
On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 01:38:57AM +0900, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Wed, 9 Jan 2008 16:36:56 +0100), Karsten
> Keil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
>
> > So I think we should disable the interface now, if DAD fails on a
> > hardware based LLA.
>
> I don't wan
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Thu, 10 Jan 2008 01:38:57 +0900 (JST)),
YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> - we could have "dad_reaction" interface variable and
> > 1: disable interface
> = 1: disable IPv6
> < 0: ignore (as we do now)
Argh, >0, 0 and <0, maybe.
--yoshfuj
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Wed, 9 Jan 2008 16:36:56 +0100), Karsten
Keil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> So I think we should disable the interface now, if DAD fails on a
> hardware based LLA.
I don't want to do this, at least, unconditionally.
Options (not exclusive):
- we could have "ena
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 04:36:56PM +0100, Karsten Keil wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I tried to run the 1.5.0 Beta2 TAHI Selftest on recent Linux kernel.
> It fails in the Stateless Address Autoconfiguration section with
> 6 tests.
> These tests are for Duplicate Address Detection (DAD).
> They are detect for
Hi,
I tried to run the 1.5.0 Beta2 TAHI Selftest on recent Linux kernel.
It fails in the Stateless Address Autoconfiguration section with
6 tests.
These tests are for Duplicate Address Detection (DAD).
They are detect for the Link Local Address a duplicate address on the
network. It seems that ou
15 matches
Mail list logo
