From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Graf Subject: Re: [PATCH] [NET]: Fix deletion of local addresses only varying in prefix length Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 17:23:23 +0100 Message-ID: <20050305162323.GM31837@postel.suug.ch> References: <20050304012003.GA31837@postel.suug.ch> <20050304131419.GE31837@postel.suug.ch> <20050304233212.GA27421@gondor.apana.org.au> <20050305002910.GJ31837@postel.suug.ch> <20050305005911.GA27804@gondor.apana.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: davem@davemloft.net, netdev@oss.sgi.com To: Herbert Xu Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050305005911.GA27804@gondor.apana.org.au> Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org * Herbert Xu <20050305005911.GA27804@gondor.apana.org.au> 2005-03-05 11:59 > On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 01:29:10AM +0100, Thomas Graf wrote: > > > > I've been thinking about this since yesterday and the best solution I > > came up so far is to encode it in one of the yet unused bits in > > the prefixlength field. After all we're only using 5bits of it. What > > i'm thinking of in particular is to encode it as in 1 bit wildcard > > flag 5 bits prefix length. > > That's sound fine as long as we treat the current ip(8) prefix length > as a wild card. Although we should keep the behaviour of ip a a 1.1.1.1/24; ip a d 1.1.1.1, what about ip a a 1.1.1.1/24; ip a d 1.1.1.1/16? I think the latter should not result in a deletion. We could achieve this by checking the prefix length if either the exact-match flag is set or the prefixlength is != 32. This is of course quite minor and only affects old iproute2 versions in combination with newer kernels. Thougts?