From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
To: zhuyj <zyjzyj2000@gmail.com>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
ebiederm@xmission.com, ja@ssi.bg, "Yang,
Zhangle (Eric)" <Zhangle.Yang@windriver.com>,
"Tao, Yue" <Yue.Tao@windriver.com>,
"Zadoyan, Grant" <Grant.Zadoyan@windriver.com>,
eric.dumazet@gmail.com, socketcan@hartkopp.net,
hannes@stressinduktion.org, cwang@twopensource.com
Subject: Re: Should linux send netlink message as it is deleting that routing entry?
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 11:30:42 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140411113042.4328c39c@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5347B2C4.6040103@gmail.com>
On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 17:15:48 +0800
zhuyj <zyjzyj2000@gmail.com> wrote:
> > With ubuntu 12.04, I run the following to reproduce this defect.
> >
> > 1) Configure an interface
> > ifconfig eth1 150.0.0.1/24 up
> >
> > 2) Add routing entry via that interface address
> > route add -net 200.0.0.0/24 gw 150.0.0.1
> >
> > 3) Change the ip address on that interface as shown below.
> > ifconfig eth1 151.0.0.1/24 up
> >
> > 4) Check netlink messages with "ip monitor all". There is no route
> > delete netlink message.
> >
With IPv4 there are several cases where there is a non-notified
implicit route withdrawal. This is not something that can be fixed.
There are two issues:
1. with large backbone size route tables (ie 1M routes), the number
of notification messages becomes a bottleneck and would be unreliable
2. the existing routing daemons (quagga, bird, etc) all understand/expect
the existing semantics
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-04-11 18:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-04-10 8:23 Should linux send netlink message as it is deleting that routing entry? zhuyj
2014-04-11 9:15 ` zhuyj
2014-04-11 18:30 ` Stephen Hemminger [this message]
2014-04-16 10:50 ` zhuyj
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140411113042.4328c39c@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net \
--to=stephen@networkplumber.org \
--cc=Grant.Zadoyan@windriver.com \
--cc=Yue.Tao@windriver.com \
--cc=Zhangle.Yang@windriver.com \
--cc=cwang@twopensource.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=hannes@stressinduktion.org \
--cc=ja@ssi.bg \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=socketcan@hartkopp.net \
--cc=zyjzyj2000@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.