Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] IPv6: Generic TTL Security Mechanism (original version)

From: Nick Hilliard <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2010 20:06:17 +0100

On 05/04/2010 05:48, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki wrote:
> I am for 1/3 (original), not for 2/3, 3/3.
>
> Because we should allow users to set respective value
> for IPv4 and IPv6, as we allow users to do so for TTL
> and hoplimit itself.

<non-linux-user>

I concur.  ipv4 mapped addresses need special handling in lots of cases, 
and I don't believe that patch 2/3 adds anything here - except possibly 
confusion.

Regarding case 3/3, ipv4 and ipv6 are separate protocols.  Treating them 
as the same from the setsockopt() point of view is a clear case of the 
Wrong Thing.

</non-linux-user>

Case 1/3 is IMO a better approach.  It satisfies both KISS (keep it 
simple...) and POLA (principle of least astonishment).

Nick