From: Duan Jiong <duanj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
To: hannes@stressinduktion.org
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipv6: match those routes that have different metirc
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 16:29:26 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <52809566.8050908@cn.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131111073923.GB27030@order.stressinduktion.org>
于 2013年11月11日 15:39, Hannes Frederic Sowa 写道:
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 03:16:24PM +0800, Duan Jiong wrote:
>> 于 2013年11月11日 14:07, Hannes Frederic Sowa 写道:
>>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 11:00:53AM +0800, Duan Jiong wrote:
>>>> Now the kernel only match those routes that have the same
>>>> metirc, so if those routes are non-reachable, then the packets
>>>> can't be sent out.
>>>>
>>>> But according to the rfc 4191 section 3.2, if the best route
>>>> points to a non-reachable route, the next best route should be
>>>> consulted. So the kernel should not only match those routes that
>>>> have minimum metric, and should also match others.
>>>
>>> I am not so keen on chaning how metrics get handled. Please note that
>>> metrics are a pure linux-centric concept and are not standardized. I bet
>>> some people depend on how these work and have the same semantic as IPv4
>>> ones because they use the same code in their routing daemon backends.
>>>
>>
>> I have a question. If we only match those routes that have lowest metric, others
>> will never be used, so why the other routes are inserted to the router table?
>
> Metrics could get used by software which manages dynamic interfaces, e.g.
> vpn/ppp software, to make sure they have priority over the current routing
> settings. If we don't respect metrics there, this could lead to security
> problems. (if the interface vanishes, the other route gets active again).
>
> It could also be used by dynamic routing software, e.g. is-is, ospf, bgp and
> does reflect the admins choice where traffic should get routed. Some routing
> daemon apply the whole routing table to the fib. If we don't respect metrics
> there, they could lose money, because maybe they pay for the traffic.
> They really get interesting if you have more than one routing protocol active
> at the same time. ;)
>
Thanks for your reply. I think i don't fully understand the metric, and this
patch should be ignored!
I am sorry that bothers your.
Thanks,
Duan
prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-11-11 8:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-11-11 3:00 [PATCH] ipv6: match those routes that have different metirc Duan Jiong
2013-11-11 6:07 ` Hannes Frederic Sowa
2013-11-11 7:16 ` Duan Jiong
2013-11-11 7:39 ` Hannes Frederic Sowa
2013-11-11 8:29 ` Duan Jiong [this message]
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=52809566.8050908@cn.fujitsu.com \
--to=duanj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=hannes@stressinduktion.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/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.