From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Hutchings Subject: Re: [RFC v2 2/4] net: enables interface option to skip IP Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 02:01:59 +0000 Message-ID: <1393293719.6823.148.camel__44003.7128552378$1393293853$gmane$org@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk> References: <1393266120.8041.19.camel@dcbw.local> <20140224.180426.411052665068255886.davem@davemloft.net> <1393286520.6823.123.camel@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk> <20140224.191238.921310808350170272.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3922592485332296777==" Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta4.messagelabs.com ([85.158.143.247]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1WI7Lg-00038c-I0 for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 02:02:20 +0000 In-Reply-To: <20140224.191238.921310808350170272.davem@davemloft.net> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: David Miller Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, mcgrof@do-not-panic.com, dcbw@redhat.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jmorris@namei.org, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, zoltan.kiss@citrix.com, kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, kaber@trash.net List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org --===============3922592485332296777== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-YYrQ2oDAg0I7CCTJmDT8" --=-YYrQ2oDAg0I7CCTJmDT8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 19:12 -0500, David Miller wrote: > From: Ben Hutchings > Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 00:02:00 +0000 >=20 > > You can run an internal network, or access network, as v6-only with > > NAT64 and DNS64 at the border. I believe some mobile networks are doin= g > > this; it was also done on the main FOSDEM wireless network this year. >=20 > This seems to be bloating up the networking headers of the internal > network, for what purpose? >=20 > For mobile that's doubly inadvisable. I don't know what the reasoning is for the mobile network operators. They're forced to do NAT for v4 somewhere, and maybe v6-only makes the access network easier to manage. I doubt the extra header length hurts that much on a 3G or 4G network. Ben. --=20 Ben Hutchings Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. - Albert Einstei= n --=-YYrQ2oDAg0I7CCTJmDT8 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIVAwUAUwv5l+e/yOyVhhEJAQpXUA/9HUG2G2LIDPmo09FoOGCUKQ3ak6vf9ZgB WCkn4sqbfANNxloU8AZT/rnWzcaU5GwlTm4b3XCEmiU9pDCOfZDDa81a2j20MnqI MHY61c19Vg7SIeQ46TbVGlUOvn13XkHeqYulQIfgW6EvUnVugVog1/MHdagsTpjM wJSHN1y8NegK07aO9KkEMM16APT6nE1bZ8tVTB5iwaX3b23ZBY/Z5P7Zk70gcbLt 4VoaNmzv76O5SQJ82KQjbpuI+ZNYYXstG6ZIfRUEcFbBEZc0+6LQoEkEK9LOJcSk 4khGycBNemZlQleyhs35WdYde9ZCHkOhHOBzYmmBiuVdy8wwm+rYSEr0RNpBnMji 6cltOYeIX0pXC0FVf7ooeQLrZhYhEmo2AM0qCOqsOt6waTQ54zBmb/PNK2aJUKhJ Gvkb/5aNQrAiOV5XWkrzT+jXRAVd8JYHQYE/nSBHwtdk+mdukXLdlBz4FaB8o5I/ peG/3Xvo+J74WEHLOGJhvKRgS6N6WZ7rurLUX4O4EiSZD90HoSdQBp7yhaasjfEw 65x2pf+ZM99XwS+41dVj9TCc14KjRdbt13FeJaSbz2GD+WpcOIRRdR2/0LL7/Swl lYpVB21XTFhrERBL9qRt1X43sHnqCHgDL1+UfJLmCZ9JXHaQ1vqdkTv9BTTgkeee zdXHXl0KAsg= =rbWU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-YYrQ2oDAg0I7CCTJmDT8-- --===============3922592485332296777== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel --===============3922592485332296777==--