netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Anycast usage, final diagnosis? (was: IPv6: Fix broken anycast usage

To: kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Anycast usage, final diagnosis? (was: IPv6: Fix broken anycast usage)
From: Mika Liljeberg <mika.liljeberg@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: 17 Jul 2003 11:38:53 +0300
Cc: kuznet <kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, davem@xxxxxxxxxx, jmorris@xxxxxxxxxx, pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <200307170223.GAA13064@dub.inr.ac.ru>
References: <200307170223.GAA13064@dub.inr.ac.ru>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
Alexey,

On Thu, 2003-07-17 at 05:23, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> diff -Nru a/net/ipv6/ndisc.c b/net/ipv6/ndisc.c
> --- a/net/ipv6/ndisc.c        Thu Jul 17 06:13:09 2003
> +++ b/net/ipv6/ndisc.c        Thu Jul 17 06:13:09 2003
> @@ -785,8 +785,7 @@
>                       ipv6_addr_all_nodes(&maddr);
>                       ndisc_send_na(dev, NULL, &maddr, &ifp->addr, 
>                                     ifp->idev->cnf.forwarding, 0, 
> -                                   
> ipv6_addr_type(&ifp->addr)&IPV6_ADDR_ANYCAST ? 0 : 1, 
> -                                   1);
> +                                   1, 1);
>                       in6_ifa_put(ifp);
>                       return;
>               }
> @@ -809,8 +808,7 @@
>                       if (neigh || !dev->hard_header) {
>                               ndisc_send_na(dev, neigh, saddr, &ifp->addr, 
>                                             ifp->idev->cnf.forwarding, 1, 
> -                                           
> ipv6_addr_type(&ifp->addr)&IPV6_ADDR_ANYCAST ? 0 : 1, 
> -                                           1);
> +                                           1, 1);
>                               if (neigh)
>                                       neigh_release(neigh);
>                       }

I'm not sure you can just remove these. It seems possible (?) to have
the anycast address configured on one of the interfaces as a unicast at
the same time. I.e., one of the anycast members could own the address.

For what it's worth, I think you have the right semantics.

        MikaL


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>