Re: [net-next-2.6 PATCH 1/7] xfrm: introduce basic mark infrastructure

[jamal <hadi@cyberus.ca>]

On Tue, 2010-02-16 at 13:59 +0100, Benny Amorsen wrote:

> From your description, I would add the IPSEC SPD + SA with a specific
> mark. Then I would set the mark in the rule table if I want the packets
> to go through the tunnel, or clear the mark to have them go through
> normal routing.

yes.

> Not perfect, because I would have to replicate parts of
> the routing table in the rule table, but it could be made to work.

Agreed this is a problem and not a nice one (the counter arguement is
at least theres a way for some users now..

> Perfect would be if I could set mark in the routing table instead of the
> rule table, but sometimes perfect is the enemy of good...

This is actually an interesting idea and is not far-fetched (and would
certainly get rid of the replication problem). If i understood
correctly, you would have:
ip route add blah blah mark 0x10

and that the routing core will use the mark to (as it does for example
with ifindex) to pick the route? I like the idea for the simple fact it
will reduce immensely configuration in some cases..

cheers,
jamal