Re: [PATCH] net: compute a more reasonable default ip6_rt_max_size

Eric Dumazet
2012-05-26T03:39:40Z

On Fri, 2012-05-25 at 17:44 -0700, Arun Sharma wrote:
> On 5/25/12 5:11 PM, David Miller wrote:
>
> >> These were not admin configured routes. They were discovered via ipv6
> >> neighbor discovery.
> >
> > Then such default routes should either be:
> >
> > 1) Passed over by GC
> >
> > 2) Trigger neighbour discovery when GC'd
>
> It's possible that there is a bug somewhere - we didn't get a chance to
> dig deeper. What we observed is that as we got close to the 4096 limit,
> some hosts were becoming unreachable. A modest increase in the routing
> table size made things better.
>
> -Arun

But your patch is not a "modest increase", so whats the deal ?

A modest increase would be 8192 instead of 4096, regardless of RAM size.