From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: nonlocal_bind and IPv6 Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 13:20:12 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20111216.132012.625460188266025260.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20111216.020600.1695776769736304587.davem@davemloft.net> <20111216111027.GA2315@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: bernat@luffy.cx, zenczykowski@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org To: romieu@fr.zoreil.com Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([198.137.202.13]:56759 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760133Ab1LPSXW convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Dec 2011 13:23:22 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20111216111027.GA2315@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: =46rom: Francois Romieu Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:10:27 +0100 > Vincent Bernat : >> On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 02:06:00 -0500 (EST), David Miller wrote: >> >>04:58, Maciej =AFenczykowski disait=A0: > [...] >> >>>why not simply use the IP_TRANSPARENT or IP_FREEBIND socket >> >>>options? >> >> >> >>Because this requires modifying each affected software. This >> >>can be difficult if you don't have the source code available. >> > >> >But it means that it would work on every single kernel verion out >> >there. > [...] >> Moreover, I am just adding the IPv6 version of this setting. The >> IPv4 version already exists. >=20 > For IPv6 this is adding a system-scope function which will have to be > maintained and available for ages. It will compete with the existing, > per-application answer. The "fix you application / design" argument > is thus stronger than with IPv4. Another excellent point.