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
> >>
> >>
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
10 matches
Mail list logo