> On 7 Mar 2016, at 17:49, Tom Herbert <t...@herbertland.com> wrote: > >> That said, do you believe it could be an option to maybe have both these >> options? I think that the ability to run BPF in the listening path is >> really interesting, but it's probably an overkill for the bind-to-subnet >> use case. >> > > Maybe. It will be quite common server configuration with IPv6 to > assign each server its own /64 prefix(es). From that POV I suppose > there is some value in having SO_BINDTOSUBNET.
Good, in this case I will submit again this RFC when the net-next window will open for the 4.6 release, so that we can gather more comments and decide what to do. Thank you, Gilberto
