From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756517AbZBZUOV (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Feb 2009 15:14:21 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753359AbZBZUOG (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Feb 2009 15:14:06 -0500 Received: from acsinet11.oracle.com ([141.146.126.233]:36667 "EHLO acsinet11.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753028AbZBZUOE (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Feb 2009 15:14:04 -0500 Cc: Jay Vosburgh , David Miller , arvidjaar@mail.ru, vladislav.yasevich@hp.com, tytso@mit.edu, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, rjw@sisk.pl, netdev@vger.kernel.org, bonding-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, jamagallon@ono.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Message-Id: <2FBB0F50-8763-4A17-8734-5940FC3FF26A@oracle.com> From: Chuck Lever To: Brian Haley In-Reply-To: <49A6F50E.3070100@hp.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] bonding: move IPv6 support into a separate kernel module Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 15:12:48 -0500 References: <49A5ADB3.2010709@hp.com> <28797.1235599858@death.nxdomain.ibm.com> <20090225.141430.166906161.davem@davemloft.net> <49A6C6ED.3070801@hp.com> <22876.1235672073@death.nxdomain.ibm.com> <49A6ED6D.3090508@hp.com> <49A6F50E.3070100@hp.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) X-Source-IP: acsmt702.oracle.com [141.146.40.80] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A010209.49A6F7CC.010A:SCFSTAT928724,ss=1,fgs=0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Feb 26, 2009, at Feb 26, 2009, 3:01 PM, Brian Haley wrote: > Chuck Lever wrote: >>> I think changing ipv6 to support a disable_ipv6 module parameter >>> like Vlad suggested would work, as long as we're not worried about >>> someone opening an AF_INET6 socket - even if they do they won't >>> get anywhere. >> In this case, if IPV6ONLY is set on an AF_INET6 listener, it should >> still get AF_INET traffic, correct? > > No, it should get nothing, and a send should get ENETUNREACH. Sorry, I got my logic backwards. If IPV6ONLY is intentionally cleared on an AF_INET6 socket, it should still be able to handle AF_INET traffic. -- Chuck Lever chuck[dot]lever[at]oracle[dot]com