From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] rt6i_genid Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 02:33:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20130719.023318.2201887768706444746.davem@davemloft.net> References: <51E8B273.1090002@windriver.com> <20130718.203100.1960741588589171145.davem@davemloft.net> <51E8EFBC.6040902@windriver.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: fan.du@windriver.com Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([149.20.54.216]:44937 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759890Ab3GSJdU (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Jul 2013 05:33:20 -0400 In-Reply-To: <51E8EFBC.6040902@windriver.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Fan Du Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 15:50:20 +0800 > The original commit is targeted for XFRM policy inserting/removing, > but it uses net genid shared by both IPv4 and IPv6, the side effect is > add/delete IPv4 address will invalidate IPv6 dst in all. > > We *do* need to bump genid when add/delete IPv6 address in scenario I > described here: http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg243398.html, > but definitely not from add/delete IPv4 address. Moreover test shows > that DCCP still push thousands of packets on wire after delete its > IPv6 > address in the same scenario I describe before. > > The impulse to bump genid for IPv6 is much more stronger after this > commit even do it unintentionally. If you really think it will help, and it will still handle the IPSEC case, you can make a seperate genid for ipv4 and ipv6 but that might not work out so cleanly.