On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 20:56:32 +0100 Jiri Bohac <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 11:38:17AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > Jiri Bohac <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I have the feeling that Eric's patch is the safest solution we > > > have so far: > > Eric's patch has other regressions, see the discussion. > > What regression do you mean? I have read the whole discussion > thoroughly. You only say in one message that deleting ::1 would > propagate to routing daemons. And Eric correctly stated that > people couldn't hit this, because deleting ::1 would break > things on its own. > > Is there a real problem with Eric's fix? > > Thanks, > If address is assigned to loopback interface (other than ::1) then Eric's fix doesn't work. It is common to use an additional address on the lo device when doing routing protocols. _______________________________________________ stable mailing list [email protected] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/stable
