Re: [net-next,v2,4/5] seg6: add support for the SRv6 End.DT4 behavior

[David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>]

On 11/13/20 10:02 AM, Stefano Salsano wrote:
> Il 2020-11-13 17:55, Jakub Kicinski ha scritto:
>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 18:49:17 -0700 David Ahern wrote:
>>> On 11/12/20 6:28 PM, Andrea Mayer wrote:
>>>> The implementation of SRv6 End.DT4 differs from the the
>>>> implementation of SRv6
>>>> End.DT6 due to the different *route input* lookup functions. For
>>>> IPv6 is it
>>>> possible to force the routing lookup specifying a routing table
>>>> through the
>>>> ip6_pol_route() function (as it is done in the
>>>> seg6_lookup_any_nexthop()).
>>>
>>> It is unfortunate that the IPv6 variant got in without the VRF piece.
>>
>> Should we make it a requirement for this series to also extend the v6
>> version to support the preferred VRF-based operation? Given VRF is
>> better and we require v4 features to be implemented for v6?
> 
> I think it is better to separate the two aspects... adding a missing
> feature in IPv4 datapath should not depend on improving the quality of
> the implementation of the IPv6 datapath :-)
> 
> I think that Andrea is willing to work on improving the IPv6
> implementation, but this should be considered after this patchset...
> 

agreed. The v6 variant has existed for a while. The v4 version is
independent.