Le 11/07/2019 à 23:59, Robert Swindells a écrit :
coypu%sdf.org@localhost wrote:On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 09:43:23PM +0100, Robert Swindells wrote:coypu%sdf.org@localhost wrote:what is this about? do we want to keep it? :-)Where ? I have the MobileIPv6 implementation from KAME in my tree so can't do a search to see if any of it has got committed already by mistake.No, it wasn't committed. When working on other kernels, we had a rule that if it's out of tree, it doesn't exist. I think it's reasonable. It's hard to consider cases you don't see.??? I remembered that I have a checked out -8 tree that I could search. There is some stuff in in6_src.c wrapped in MIP6 and/or NMIP that will have been there since the IPv6 code was imported from KAME. I have changed it slightly to work in -current. It might be cleaner to remove it for now and add all the MIP6 code in one go at some point in the future.
Honestly, if it's to end up with +40K lines of poorly written, highly buggy and likely vulnerable code developed by god knows whom twenty years ago, I don't see any reason to add MIP6 support. SCTP is sufficient in terms of broken, invasive stuff.