| To: | mika.liljeberg@xxxxxxxxx (Mika Liljeberg) |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Anycast usage, final diagnosis? (was: IPv6: Fix broken anycast |
| From: | kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| Date: | Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:06:37 +0400 (MSD) |
| Cc: | davem@xxxxxxxxxx, jmorris@xxxxxxxxxx, pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <1058431132.5781.32.camel@hades> from "Mika Liljeberg" at Jul 17, 2003 11:38:53 AM |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Hello! > 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. They cannot intersect, otherwise RTF_LOCAL thing will not work. I deliberately blocked attempt to add a local address as anycast in anycast.c, see another chunk. But even that check is not necessary: non-superuser may listen only for reserved unicasts, which are excluded from allowed local addresses by policy. Kernel does not need even to worry about this. Actually, the test in ndisc.c was bogus by another reason: inet_addr_type() checks only for reserved anycasts and non-reserved unicasts, which would conflict with local addresses, were not detected in any case. Alexey |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Anycast usage, final diagnosis? (was: IPv6: Fix broken anycast usage), Mika Liljeberg |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Fw: [PATCH] IPv6: Allow 6to4 routes with SIT, kuznet |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Anycast usage, final diagnosis? (was: IPv6: Fix broken anycast usage), Mika Liljeberg |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Anycast usage, final diagnosis? (was: IPv6: Fix broken anycast, Mika Liljeberg |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |