From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Fan Du Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next V2] net: split rt_genid for ipv4 and ipv6 Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 16:12:55 +0800 Message-ID: <51EF8C87.4060707@windriver.com> References: <1374543420-12657-1-git-send-email-fan.du@windriver.com> <20130723020437.GC30719@order.stressinduktion.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: , , , , , To: Hannes Frederic Sowa Return-path: Received: from mail.windriver.com ([147.11.1.11]:42794 "EHLO mail.windriver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750865Ab3GXILw (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jul 2013 04:11:52 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20130723020437.GC30719@order.stressinduktion.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hallo Hannes On 2013=E5=B9=B407=E6=9C=8823=E6=97=A5 10:04, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrot= e: > On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 09:37:00AM +0800, Fan Du wrote: >> Current net name space has only one genid for both IPv4 and IPv6, it= has below drawbacks: >> >> - Add/delete an IPv4 address will invalidate all IPv6 routing table = entries. >> - Insert/remove XFRM policy will also invalidate both IPv4/IPv6 rout= ing table entries >> even when the policy is only applied for one address family. >> >> Thus, this patch attempt to split one genid for two to cater for IPv= 4 and IPv6 separately >> in a fine granularity. > > For me the approach seems reasonable. We should double-check if this > does not affect v4mapped af_inet6 sockets in any way. I could help to > do the review if there is an agreement that the split is desirable. Thank you for your attention :) v4mapped af_inet6 address shouldn't cause problem, as long as the mappe= d v4 address is routable in IPv4 stack, so add/delete IPv6 address doesn'= t interfere IPv4 routing entry. > Thanks, > > Hannes > > --=20 =E6=B5=AE=E6=B2=89=E9=9A=8F=E6=B5=AA=E5=8F=AA=E8=AE=B0=E4=BB=8A=E6=9C=9D= =E7=AC=91 --fan