| To: | vnuorval@xxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH|RFC] IPv6 netfilter: a module for complete proxy ND support |
| From: | YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 28 Jan 2004 08:46:01 +0900 (JST) |
| Cc: | netfilter-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, davem@xxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.LNX.4.58.0401272244360.28384@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Organization: | USAGI Project |
| References: | <Pine.LNX.4.58.0401151719160.29722@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040116.005443.92504522.yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0401272244360.28384@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
In article <Pine.LNX.4.58.0401272244360.28384@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (at Tue, 27 Jan 2004 22:58:02 +0200 (EET)), Ville Nuorvala <vnuorval@xxxxxxxxxx> says: > How about this fix? I think it's cleaner than the one I proposed > earlier. The down side with it is that all nodes, no matter if they are : Well, it seems better to me. I however think it should be done in ip6_forward() because "proxying" is done at the router, acting as proxy. Packets sent to the proxying router are basically forwarded to the original node even if the destination is link-local. On performance issue: as IPv4, we may want to have net.ipv6.conf.<if>.proxy_ndisc sysctl. We may also want to have another configuration option (to enable proxy) bacause not all routers require this feature. BTW, would you please give me a few days, till my defence over? :-) --yoshfuji |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH|RFC] IPv6 netfilter: a module for complete proxy ND support, Ville Nuorvala |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH|RFC] IPv6: have a proxy discard link-local traffic, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH|RFC] IPv6 netfilter: a module for complete proxy ND support, Ville Nuorvala |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH|RFC] IPv6 netfilter: a module for complete proxy ND support, Pekka Savola |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |