From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ido Schimmel Subject: Re: [patch net-next 14/17] mlxsw: spectrum_router: Add support for IPv6 routes addition / deletion Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 19:43:45 +0300 Message-ID: <20170719164345.GA23668@splinter> References: <20170719070232.28457-1-jiri@resnulli.us> <20170719070232.28457-15-jiri@resnulli.us> <983f0254-9539-213d-f140-63b542d8f23e@gmail.com> <20170719163052.GB10775@splinter> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Jiri Pirko , netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, mlxsw@mellanox.com, roopa@cumulusnetworks.com, nikolay@cumulusnetworks.com, kafai@fb.com, hannes@stressinduktion.org, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, edumazet@google.com, yanhaishuang@cmss.chinamobile.com To: David Ahern Return-path: Received: from mail-ve1eur01on0047.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([104.47.1.47]:31616 "EHLO EUR01-VE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753709AbdGSQnw (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Jul 2017 12:43:52 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 10:36:52AM -0600, David Ahern wrote: > >> 2. How are routes with devices unrelated to ports owned by this driver > >> handled? > > > > They are handled just like any other route, but they don't have a valid > > RIF (for directly connected routes) or an adjacency group (for > > gatewayed routes), so the check in mlxsw_sp_fib_entry_should_offload() > > will return false and they will be programmed to the device with trap > > action, but using a trap ID (RTR_INGRESS0) with a lower traffic class > > than IP2ME, so packets that actually need to be locally received by the > > CPU have a better QoS. > > so mlxsw keeps a copy of the complete FIB for IPv4 and IPv6, even routes > unrelated to its ports? If we don't reflect all the routes in the system to the ASIC, then we'll have a broken routing table and a different behavior from what you would get with plain NICs.