netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH|RFC] IPv6 netfilter: a module for complete proxy ND support

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

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