From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 14 May 2001 03:35:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 14 May 2001 03:35:17 -0400 Received: from mailout01.sul.t-online.com ([194.25.134.80]:12303 "EHLO mailout01.sul.t-online.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 14 May 2001 03:35:00 -0400 Date: 14 May 2001 09:42:00 +0200 From: kaih@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen) To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <80qQqUQ1w-B@khms.westfalen.de> In-Reply-To: <15103.18224.265350.877968@pizda.ninka.net> Subject: Re: IPv6: the same address can be added multiple times X-Mailer: CrossPoint v3.12d.kh6 R/C435 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: Organisation? Me?! Are you kidding? In-Reply-To: <200105131759.VAA27768@ms2.inr.ac.ru> <15103.18224.265350.877968@pizda.ninka.net> X-No-Junk-Mail: I do not want to get *any* junk mail. Comment: Unsolicited commercial mail will incur an US$100 handling fee per received mail. X-Fix-Your-Modem: +++ATS2=255&WO1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org davem@redhat.com (David S. Miller) wrote on 13.05.01 in <15103.18224.265350.877968@pizda.ninka.net>: > Pekka Savola writes: > > But it still looks dirty. Also, it's easier to add it many times by > > mistake; IPv4 addresses do not allow this. And as you have to remove > > them N times too, this may create even more confusion. > > There is this growing (think growing as in "fungus") set of thinking > that just because something can be misused, this is an argument > against it even existing. But that does not seem to be the argument here. Rather, it is "I can certainly see where this can cause harm, but I cannot see where it is useful for anything at all, so why do we have it?". > I think this is wrong. I'm seeing it a lot, especially on this list, > and it's becomming a real concern at least to me. > > Most of the time the argument goes like: > > 1: "Well, we allow this because you can do usefull things X Y and > Z as a result." What is X, Y and Z in this particular case? Nobody seems to have said that. Incidentally, this thread is *very* similar to the "mount the exact same FS several times on the exact same mountpoint" thing. I'd expect to get a similar resolution (i.e., *don't* allow that). MfG Kai