From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?UTF-8?B?Tmljb2xhcyBkZSBQZXNsb8O8YW4=?= Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] bridge: leave carrier on for empty bridge Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 22:10:13 +0200 Message-ID: <4E7F8AA5.1060709@gmail.com> References: <20110902172247.396753508@vyatta.com> <4E614CF7.7030700@gmail.com> <20110902151100.327af0bf@nehalam.ftrdhcpuser.net> <4E6272BC.4020707@gmail.com> <20110903211438.2a43d2f2@nehalam.ftrdhcpuser.net> <4E632A2E.5040805@gmail.com> <20110904093634.685d7c56@nehalam.ftrdhcpuser.net> <4E65046E.1020005@gmail.com> <20110905105735.1b912715@nehalam.ftrdhcpuser.net> <4E65C31F.1010809@gmail.com> <20110925091606.GE32712@torres.zugschlus.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Marc Haber Return-path: Received: from mail-wy0-f174.google.com ([74.125.82.174]:37913 "EHLO mail-wy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753146Ab1IYUKF (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Sep 2011 16:10:05 -0400 Received: by wyg34 with SMTP id 34so5346330wyg.19 for ; Sun, 25 Sep 2011 13:10:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20110925091606.GE32712@torres.zugschlus.de> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Le 25/09/2011 11:16, Marc Haber a =C3=A9crit : > On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 08:52:15AM +0200, Nicolas de Peslo=C3=BCan wr= ote: >> I really support the idea to keep the current behavior (assert >> carrier on br0 when at least one port have carrier) and to fix the >> applications to wait for the IPv6 address to be checked (DAD) >> instead of dying on bind() failure. > > A really brilliant idea. Break things and then expect hundreds of app= s > or millions of installations to adapt. Well... Considering the noise you made recently about the new bridge be= havior, I'm sure we all=20 understand this is a problem for you. We try and find a reasonable solution between two somewhat incompatible= expectations and this is not=20 easy. If you have had a real reading of my proposal, you would have not= iced that I really tried to=20 find a solution that would be acceptable for both situations. Stephen, = which is far more experienced=20 than me on this topic explained that my proposal was (and still is) not= applicable. Instead of annoying us with comments like "brilliant idea" or "nice ide= a", feel free to propose=20 something that would contribute to the solution. Nicolas.