Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262701AbVBFFAu (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Feb 2005 00:00:50 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S271524AbVBFFAu (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Feb 2005 00:00:50 -0500 Received: from yue.linux-ipv6.org ([203.178.140.15]:16142 "EHLO yue.st-paulia.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262701AbVBFFAh (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Feb 2005 00:00:37 -0500 Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 14:01:35 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <20050206.140135.112327413.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> To: davem@davemloft.net Cc: herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, mirko.parthey@informatik.tu-chemnitz.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@oss.sgi.com, shemminger@osdl.org, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org Subject: Re: PROBLEM: 2.6.11-rc2 hangs on bridge shutdown (br0) From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / =?iso-2022-jp?B?GyRCNUhGIzFRTEAbKEI=?= In-Reply-To: <20050205200242.2b629de7.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20050205064643.GA29758@gondor.apana.org.au> <20050205.195039.05988480.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> <20050205200242.2b629de7.davem@davemloft.net> Organization: USAGI Project X-URL: http://www.yoshifuji.org/%7Ehideaki/ X-Fingerprint: 9022 65EB 1ECF 3AD1 0BDF 80D8 4807 F894 E062 0EEA X-PGP-Key-URL: http://www.yoshifuji.org/%7Ehideaki/hideaki@yoshifuji.org.asc X-Face: "5$Al-.M>NJ%a'@hhZdQm:."qn~PA^gq4o*>iCFToq*bAi#4FRtx}enhuQKz7fNqQz\BYU] $~O_5m-9'}MIs`XGwIEscw;e5b>n"B_?j/AkL~i/MEaZBLP X-Mailer: Mew version 2.2 on Emacs 20.7 / Mule 4.1 (AOI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1800 Lines: 47 In article <20050205200242.2b629de7.davem@davemloft.net> (at Sat, 5 Feb 2005 20:02:42 -0800), "David S. Miller" says: > > Yes, IPv6 needs "split device" semantics > > (for per-device statistics such as Ip6InDelivers etc), > > and I like later solution. > > Ok. I never read whether ipv6, like ipv4, is specified to support > a model of host based ownership of addresses. Does anyone know? I'm not sure it is explicitly specified, but there're some hints: 1. we need to allow multiple addresses on multiple interfaces. e.g. link-local address 2. if a packet has come from A to link-local address on the other side B, we should not receive it. +-------+ ---->|A B| +-------+ Currently, it does not happen in usual because ndisc does NOT handle addresses on other device. 3. mib document states that we should take statistics on interface which the address belongs to; not the interface where the packet has come from: cited from RFC2011bis: Local (*) packets on the input side are counted on the interface associated with their destination address, which may not be the interface on which they were received. This requirement is caused by the possibility of losing the original interface during processing, especially re-assembly. (*): here it means incoming, but not forwarding. BTW, BSD has similar reference to interface structure in routeing entry. -- Hideaki YOSHIFUJI @ USAGI Project GPG FP: 9022 65EB 1ECF 3AD1 0BDF 80D8 4807 F894 E062 0EEA - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/