[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: IPv6 socket behaviour different to IPv4?
On 5/06/2014 7:39 AM, 神明達哉 wrote:
Disabling DAD on that interface certainly looks too
much if the purpose is to allow node-local communication using a
"detached" address. One possibility would be to introduce a tweakable
switch that disables the DNA operation at the risk of allowing the
small window on link up. Another, probably more substantial but
probably cleaner change would be to allow using a detached address for
(node) local communication (e.g., allow bind() but filter out packets
using a detached address if they are sent to the wire rather than
All of these suggestions have merit as I'm also of a mind to not
disable (or need to disable) DAD just to support node-local
communication whilst the link is down.
I've not tested this, but wouldn't a host route to the interface address
via the loopback address work?
Is this a question of whether local communication using a detached
address is currently possible? I don't fully remember either, but the
host route itself should work (unless it's removed as a result of the
status change to detached). But there may be other issues, like
whether bind(2) is allowed for that address.
Yes - part of the problem here is that bind(2) currently fails and I cannot
see how creating a host route would fix that.
Main Index |
Thread Index |