From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Dichtel Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] ipv6: fix route selection if kernel is not compiled with CONFIG_IPV6_ROUTER_PREF Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 21:01:17 +0200 Message-ID: <51E0527D.2030205@6wind.com> References: <51DD521F.1000905@6wind.com> <20130710132122.GD15411@order.stressinduktion.org> <51DD6B72.1050700@6wind.com> <20130710212149.GA26122@order.stressinduktion.org> <51DE671F.5050706@6wind.com> <20130711102441.GC5207@order.stressinduktion.org> <20130711144623.GA5707@order.stressinduktion.org> <51DEC7E6.8000500@6wind.com> <20130712085113.GI12611@order.stressinduktion.org> <51DFF0DD.5050601@6wind.com> <20130712161935.GB31912@order.stressinduktion.org> Reply-To: nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, petrus.lt@gmail.com, davem@davemloft.net To: Hannes Frederic Sowa Return-path: Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com ([209.85.212.172]:60546 "EHLO mail-wi0-f172.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965033Ab3GLTB2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Jul 2013 15:01:28 -0400 Received: by mail-wi0-f172.google.com with SMTP id c10so1024357wiw.17 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 12:01:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20130712161935.GB31912@order.stressinduktion.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Le 12/07/2013 18:19, Hannes Frederic Sowa a =C3=A9crit : > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 02:04:45PM +0200, Nicolas Dichtel wrote: >> It's possible to add a glue to check this counter when we play with = these >> flags, but it's ugly. >> >> Maybe the check against RTF_EXPIRES is fundamentally wrong. Checking >> RTF_ADDRCONF|RTF_DYNAMIC should be enough, what do you think? > > Yes, this seems to be the best option now. I will audit the source if > RTF_ADDRCONF and RTF_DYNAMIC are immutable after dst construction and > if other errors could arise for that and would go with this solution = then. > > What do you think about making ecmp routes explicit by adding RTF_ECM= P > flag? Why not, but you will have to be careful on insertion and deletion. Nex= t hop can=20 be added one by one and deleted one by one. > >> In another hand, we can discuss about the initial assumption, that w= as >> "only static routes are part of ECMP routes". I'm thinking of what a= re the >> consequence if we accept to accept all routes, without checking any = flags. > > I don't have a good feeling about that. But I may be wrong. Same for me, but for now, I don't have any argument ;-) The above solut= ion is=20 probably the better way for now. Nicolas