From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: Fix RPF to work with policy routing Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 21:49:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20091022.214943.105371652.davem@davemloft.net> References: <1255867954.4815.25.camel@dogo.mojatatu.com> <1255868019.4815.27.camel@dogo.mojatatu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, atis@mikrotik.com, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, zenczykowski@gmail.com To: hadi@cyberus.ca Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:42230 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750864AbZJWEtV (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:49:21 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1255868019.4815.27.camel@dogo.mojatatu.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: jamal Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 08:13:39 -0400 > On Sun, 2009-10-18 at 08:12 -0400, jamal wrote: >> policy routing never worked with mark. > > I meant policy routing, mark and RPF never worked together ;-> Is this actually valid? Such a change has a built-in assumption, I think, that marks are symmetric. Just because we ended up with mark X on input doesn't mean that the reverse path route exists with mark X too. In fact I can't even see a valid way to specify a mark for the RPF lookup. Maybe you can convince me otherwise :-)