From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752964AbaBXSVQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Feb 2014 13:21:16 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:2288 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752362AbaBXSVN (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Feb 2014 13:21:13 -0500 Message-ID: <1393266120.8041.19.camel@dcbw.local> Subject: Re: [RFC v2 2/4] net: enables interface option to skip IP From: Dan Williams To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Cc: Zoltan Kiss , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "David S. Miller" , Alexey Kuznetsov , James Morris , Hideaki YOSHIFUJI , Patrick McHardy Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 12:22:00 -0600 In-Reply-To: References: <1392433180-16052-1-git-send-email-mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> <1392433180-16052-3-git-send-email-mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> <1392668638.21106.5.camel@dcbw.local> <1392828325.21976.6.camel@dcbw.local> <1392857777.22693.14.camel@dcbw.local> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 12:31 -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Dan Williams wrote: > > Note that there isn't yet a disable_ipv4 knob though, I was > > perhaps-too-subtly trying to get you to send a patch for it, since I can > > use it too :) > > Sure, can you describe a little better the use case, as I could use > that for the commit log. My only current use case was the xen-netback > case but Zoltan has noted a few cases where an IPv4 or IPv6 address > *could* be used on the backend interfaces (which I'll still poke as > its unclear to me why they have 'em). My use-case would simply be to have an analogue for the disable_ipv6 case. In the future I expect more people will want to disable IPv4 as they move to IPv6. If you don't have something like disable_ipv4, then there's no way to ensure that some random program or something doesn't set up IPv4 stuff that you don't want. Same thing for IPv6; some people really don't want IPv6 enabled on an interface no matter what; they don't want an IPv6LL address assigned, they don't want kernel SLAAC, they want to ensure that *nothing* IPv6-related gets done for that interface. The same can be true for IPv4, but we don't have a way of doing that right now. Dan