IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GET AN ACCOUNT, please write an
email to Administrator. User accounts are meant only to access repo
and report issues and/or generate pull requests.
This is a purpose-specific Git hosting for
BaseALT
projects. Thank you for your understanding!
Только зарегистрированные пользователи имеют доступ к сервису!
Для получения аккаунта, обратитесь к администратору.
The comment is pointless, ECC systematically doesn't allow
encryption/decryption directly, only RSA does that. If you want to use
ECC for asymmetric encryption/decryption you have to combine it with key
exchange scheme and symmetric scheme. This all is not a limitation of
the Yubikey, hence don't claim so. It's just how ECC is.
They are not really boolean, because we have both ipv4 and ipv6, but
for each protocol we have either unset, no, and yes.
From https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/13316#issuecomment-582906817:
LinkLocalAddressing must be a boolean option, at least for ipv4:
- LinkLocalAddressing=no => no LL at all.
- LinkLocalAddressing=yes + Static Address => invalid configuration, warn and
interpret as LinkLocalAddressing=no, no LL at all.
(we check that during parsing and reject)
- LinkLocalAddressing=yes + DHCP => LL process should be subordinated to the
DHCP one, an LL address must be acquired at start or after a short N
unsuccessful DHCP attemps, and must not stop DHCP to keeping trying. When a
DHCP address is acquired, drop the LL address. If the DHCP address is lost,
re-adquire a new LL address.
(next patch will move in this direction)
- LinkLocalAddressing=fallback has no reason to exist, because LL address must
always be allocated as a fallback option when using DHCP. Having both DHCP
and LL address at the same time is an RFC violation, so
LinkLocalAdressing=yes correctly implemented is already the "fallback"
behavior. The fallback option must be deprecated and if present in older
configs must be interpreted as LinkLocalAddressing=yes.
(removed)
- And for IPv6, the LinkLocalAddress option has any sense at all? IPv6-LL
address aren't required to be always set for every IPv6 enabled interface (in
this case, coexisting with static or dynamic address if any)? Shouldn't be
always =yes?
(good question)
This effectively reverts 29e81083bd. There is no
special "fallback" mode now, so the check doesn't make sense anymore.
In NEWS, the new option was described twice, most likely because the first
description was tucked away in a paragraph about some other subject.
While at it, improve the descriptions in the man page to make it easier to grok
what that option really does.
Follow-up for ac24e418d9.
The original motivation of the commit and RFE #15339 is to start dhcpv6
client in managed mode when neither M nor O flag is set in the RA.
But, previously, if the setting is set to "always", then the DHCPv6
client is always started in managed mode even if O flag is set in the
RA. Such the behavior breaks RFC 7084.
