From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Francois Romieu Subject: Re: nonlocal_bind and IPv6 Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:10:27 +0100 Message-ID: <20111216111027.GA2315@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> References: <1323879648-419-1-git-send-email-bernat@luffy.cx> <20111216.020600.1695776769736304587.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: David Miller , zenczykowski@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org To: Vincent Bernat Return-path: Received: from violet.fr.zoreil.com ([92.243.8.30]:40702 "EHLO violet.fr.zoreil.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751363Ab1LPLSK (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Dec 2011 06:18:10 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Vincent Bernat : > On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 02:06:00 -0500 (EST), David Miller wrote: > >>04:58, Maciej =C5=BBenczykowski disait=C2=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. =46or 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. --=20 Ueimor