From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "David S. Miller" Subject: Re: Move fib_alias out of fib_hash.c Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 14:27:50 -0700 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <20040929142750.27b35952.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20040928214722.11aef8e0.davem@davemloft.net> <16730.53965.503605.943263@robur.slu.se> <20040929125359.12a00ba7.davem@davemloft.net> <1096492842.2344.57.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Robert.Olsson@data.slu.se, netdev@oss.sgi.com Return-path: To: Steven Blake In-Reply-To: <1096492842.2344.57.camel@localhost.localdomain> Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 17:20:43 -0400 Steven Blake wrote: > > It can also > > be the case that the longest matching prefix entry has no matching > > TOS key, whereas a shorter prefix does. > > No routing protocols are distributing TOS-specific routes, and there is > no prospect of that feature ever coming back. Why pay the cost of > matching TOS on every packet forwarded? Because once we add functionality to the kernel we can't simply rip it out. People do use TOS routing, via static routes or similar.