From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hannes Frederic Sowa Subject: Re: [PATCH] fib_rules: add minimum prefix length Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 20:17:12 +0200 Message-ID: <20130725181712.GB24007@order.stressinduktion.org> References: <20130723220221.GP10216@zirkel.wertarbyte.de> <20130724021420.GA10670@order.stressinduktion.org> <20130725162931.GX10216@zirkel.wertarbyte.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Stefan Tomanek Return-path: Received: from s15338416.onlinehome-server.info ([87.106.68.36]:39668 "EHLO order.stressinduktion.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756308Ab3GYSRN (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Jul 2013 14:17:13 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130725162931.GX10216@zirkel.wertarbyte.de> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 06:29:32PM +0200, Stefan Tomanek wrote: > Dies schrieb Hannes Frederic Sowa (hannes@stressinduktion.org): > > > I would try to factor the prefixlen_min check out into a > > e.g. fib4_rule_constrain function for which a new field in fib_rules_ops > > needs to be created as callback. Also it would be nice to have IPv6 > > support, too. ;) > > I was working on my patchset again and considered your suggestion; however I'm > not sure whether factoring out the constraints into a separate function is > actually that useful, since they are only called from one specific location for > each protocol; can you think of another useful application? I don't have a strong opinion on that but I do find that it does better fit into the design of fib_rules and will be easier to extend in future IMHO. > I however did like the idea of adding IPv6 support, so I did - > I'll post the new patch later on. Cool, thanks. Greetings, Hannes