On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 19:24:16 +1100 Stephen Hemminger <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 21:42:54 -0800 (PST) > David Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > > > From: Stephen Hemminger <[email protected]> > > Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 20:41:12 -0800 (PST) > > > > > Having IPv6 remove all addresses when link goes down is fundamentally > > > broken > > > that is what the original problem being fixed. For users on servers or > > > using > > > Quagga this matters, how do you plan to fix that? > > > > How about in a way that doesn't break stuff? > > > > And it's been beyond proven that people give more of a crap > > about disable_ipv6 than the thing you keep claiming is a big deal. > > > > NOBODY other than you even noticed the issue or made a report about > > it. > > > > Yet we have people actively complaining about disable_ipv6 being > > broken. > > > > So you lose on two counts. You can't fix things by breaking other > > stuff, and your obscure stuff matters less than things people > > actually notice being broken. > > You are probably so upset because I stepped on code you worked hard > on. But the IPv6 semantics should not have been different from IPv4 > and the disable_ipv6 flag was a poor API choice as well. Legacy > API's suck, I don't expect perfection but it should be possible > to make a working version that: > > Allows disabling IPv6 completely on an interface > AND Has the same address and route semantics for both > IPv4 and IPv6. Also for application sanity, Linux should behave the same as BSD _______________________________________________ stable mailing list [email protected] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/stable
