Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] bridge: leave carrier on for empty bridge

From: Nicolas de Pesloüan<[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 08:52:15 +0200

Le 05/09/2011 19:57, Stephen Hemminger a écrit :
> The root cause of the problem is applications that don't deal with unresolved
> IPv6 addresses. I already had to solve this in our distribution for NTP in a
> not bridge related problem. It is better to fix the applications to understand
> IPv6 address semantics than to try and force bridge to behave in a way that
> is friendly to these applications.

Thanks for clarifying.

> The earlier mail said it is a problem with dnsmasq and radvd. Let's work on understanding
> if they need to be updated before jumping in with hacks to the bridge code.
>

I really support the idea to keep the current behavior (assert carrier on br0 when at least one port 
have carrier) and to fix the applications to wait for the IPv6 address to be checked (DAD) instead 
of dying on bind() failure.

Thanks.

	Nicolas.