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

From: Nicolas de Pesloüan<[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 22:10:13 +0200

Le 25/09/2011 11:16, Marc Haber a écrit :
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 08:52:15AM +0200, Nicolas de Pesloüan wrote:
>> 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.
>
> A really brilliant idea. Break things and then expect hundreds of apps
> or millions of installations to adapt.

Well... Considering the noise you made recently about the new bridge behavior, I'm sure we all 
understand this is a problem for you.

We try and find a reasonable solution between two somewhat incompatible expectations and this is not 
easy. If you have had a real reading of my proposal, you would have noticed that I really tried to 
find a solution that would be acceptable for both situations. Stephen, which is far more experienced 
than me on this topic explained that my proposal was (and still is) not applicable.

Instead of annoying us with comments like "brilliant idea" or "nice idea", feel free to propose 
something that would contribute to the solution.

	Nicolas.