From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Duan Jiong Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] ipv6: Do route updating for redirect in ndisc layer Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 15:00:26 +0800 Message-ID: <5254FF0A.7050805@cn.fujitsu.com> References: <52327F00.4040802@cn.fujitsu.com> <5232806B.6050601@cn.fujitsu.com> <20130917.202936.2080212548361553334.davem@davemloft.net> <20130918013903.GC8947@order.stressinduktion.org> <5239076A.4080406@cn.fujitsu.com> <20130918041337.GD8947@order.stressinduktion.org> <20131009014324.GA24368@order.stressinduktion.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: hannes@stressinduktion.org Return-path: Received: from cn.fujitsu.com ([222.73.24.84]:41259 "EHLO song.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752235Ab3JIHBy convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Oct 2013 03:01:54 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20131009014324.GA24368@order.stressinduktion.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: =E4=BA=8E 2013=E5=B9=B410=E6=9C=8809=E6=97=A5 09:43, Hannes Frederic So= wa =E5=86=99=E9=81=93: > Hi Duan! >=20 > On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 06:13:37AM +0200, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote: >> Especially because redirects also help in the on-link determination = (same >> RFC, section 8), I changed my mind and am still in favour of updatin= g it >> in the ndisc layer. In my opinion we just have to consider all routi= ng >> tables and apply the update to every one which carries a valid next = hop >> to the source of the redirect (under consideration of the destinatio= n). >> >> This will be important if we actually try to get linux to correctly >> implement the ipv6 subnet model (RFC 5942, Section 4 Rule 1). In tha= t >> case we are not allowed to assume nodes on-link even if they would m= atch >> the same prefix as a locally configured address. >=20 > I am playing around with a simple patch which does suppress adding ro= uting > information for the on-link assumption we currently do in linux. >=20 > Are you intereseted in following up on this? I still do think we shou= ld update > not only the routing table the socket uses but all routing tables whi= ch have a > valid route towards the router which emitted the redirect. >=20 No, thanks, i have got other things on my mind, more important, but i w= ill pay attention to it. Thanks, Duan. > I try to check if we actually handle redirect messages when ECMP rout= es are in > use correctly. >=20