From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / =?iso-2022-jp?B?GyRCNUhGIzFRTEAbKEI=?= Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] [IPV6]: Multiple Routing Tables Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 13:13:06 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <20060729.131306.80352422.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> References: <20060726221100.325687073@postel.suug.ch> <20060726221849.495778268@postel.suug.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, vnuorval@tcs.hut.fi, usagi-core@linux-ipv6.org, davem@davemloft.net, anttit@tcs.hut.fi, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org Return-path: Received: from yue.linux-ipv6.org ([203.178.140.15]:18951 "EHLO yue.st-paulia.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161440AbWG2ELl (ORCPT ); Sat, 29 Jul 2006 00:11:41 -0400 To: tgraf@suug.ch In-Reply-To: <20060726221849.495778268@postel.suug.ch> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Hello. In article <20060726221849.495778268@postel.suug.ch> (at Thu, 27 Jul 2006 00:00:02 +0200), Thomas Graf says: > Adds the framework to support multiple IPv6 routing tables. Well, one design consideration that I have had for several months is performance impact. Previously, we directly use address, ifindex etc., not flowi, in IPv6 routing code except for ip6_route_output(). This patch changes them to use flowi. I know this should work and it is a good way for abstraction. However, initializing flowi for IPv6 is more expensive than one for IPv4, and it would result in poor performance (especially without CONFIG_IPV6_MULTIPLE_TABLES). Am I too cautious? Should we eat this? --yoshfuji