From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jamal Subject: Re: [net-next-2.6 PATCH 1/7] xfrm: introduce basic mark infrastructure Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 12:14:33 -0500 Message-ID: <1266254073.6776.109.camel@bigi> References: <1266160732-946-1-git-send-email-hadi@cyberus.ca> <1266160732-946-2-git-send-email-hadi@cyberus.ca> <4B796B70.2050102@trash.net> <1266253235.6776.90.camel@bigi> <4B797F09.5050207@trash.net> Reply-To: hadi@cyberus.ca Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: timo.teras@iki.fi, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Patrick McHardy Return-path: Received: from mail-yx0-f200.google.com ([209.85.210.200]:41842 "EHLO mail-yx0-f200.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755829Ab0BOROf (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Feb 2010 12:14:35 -0500 Received: by yxe38 with SMTP id 38so3541712yxe.4 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 2010 09:14:34 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4B797F09.5050207@trash.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 2010-02-15 at 18:06 +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote: > One related feature which would be nice to have is the ability > to use marks for xfrm tunnel routing. But I'm not sure we can > do this in a backwards compatible way. I take it policy routing by mark is insufficient. If you have time, can you give me an example setup description of that and why it would be hard to be backward-compat? If there's anything i can do in these patches to help, I will be more than happy to. cheers, jamal