Re: [PATCH] team: set IFF_SLAVE on team ports

[Stephen Hemminger]

On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 09:14:14 +0200
Jiri Pirko <jiri@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 04:04:26PM CEST, 3chas3@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >
> >
> >On 07/10/15 02:41, Jiri Pirko wrote:  
> >> Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 05:36:55PM CEST, jblunck@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:  
> >> > On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Jiri Pirko <jiri@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:  
> >> > > Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 11:58:34AM CEST, jblunck@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:  
> >> > > > 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.
> >> > 
> >> >   
> >> > > 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.