From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ipv4: factorize cache clearing for batched unregister operations Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 00:34:49 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <20091117.003449.153994565.davem@davemloft.net> References: <200911170149.50011.opurdila@ixiacom.com> <20091116160646.39c0a1ac@nehalam> <200911170922.08486.opurdila@ixiacom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: shemminger@vyatta.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, eric.dumazet@gmail.com To: opurdila@ixiacom.com Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:49547 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754726AbZKQIec (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Nov 2009 03:34:32 -0500 In-Reply-To: <200911170922.08486.opurdila@ixiacom.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Octavian Purdila Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 09:22:08 +0200 > BTW, it appears we don't have a route cache for IPv6. Right? That's right, no IPV6 route cache. But it doesn't seem to matter so much, as routing tables are still small in that realm. Although I heard the trend is for that to change. I also suspect that with things like policy routing we could run into problems, but we have a multi-way tree for the IPV6 routing table datastructure explicitly to handle those kinds of things.