Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 11:38:05AM CEST, stephen@networkplumber.org wrote:

On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 09:14:14 +0200
Jiri Pirko [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 04:04:26PM CEST, 3chas3@gmail.com wrote:

quoted

On 07/10/15 02:41, Jiri Pirko wrote:  

quoted

Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 05:36:55PM CEST, jblunck@infradead.org wrote:  

quoted

On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Jiri Pirko [off-list ref] wrote:  

quoted

Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 11:58:34AM CEST, jblunck@infradead.org wrote:  

quoted

The code in net/ipv6/addrconf.c:addrconf_notify() tests for IFF_SLAVE to
decide if it should start the address configuration. Since team ports
shouldn't get link-local addresses assigned lets set IFF_SLAVE when linking
a port to the team master.  

I don't want to use IFF_SLAVE in team. Other master-slave devices are
not using that as well, for example bridge, ovs, etc.
  

Maybe they need to get fixed too. I've used that flag because it is
documented as
a "slave of a load balancer" which describes what a team port is.

  

quoted

I think that this should be fixed in addrconf_notify. It should lookup
if there is a master on top and bail out in that case.  

There are other virtual interfaces that have a master assigned and want to
participate in IPv6 address configuration.  

Can you give me an example?  

I would like to revisit this patch (yes, I know it has been a while).  I
believe the VRF implementation uses master to group the interfaces under
a single interface.

I don't see a reason not to use IFF_SLAVE since team and bonding are fairly
similar.  

Again, why do you need team port to have IFF_SLAVE flag? What do you
want to achieve

Without setting this flag IPv6 will try and make a link specific address.

Why is it not an issue with bridge, ovs, and other master-slave devices?