From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] inetpeer: Support ipv6 addresses. Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 06:40:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20100328.064012.193708716.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20100328082250.GA14053@gondor.apana.org.au> <20100328.055312.58421329.davem@davemloft.net> <20100328131112.GA15984@gondor.apana.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: herbert@gondor.apana.org.au Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:40202 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754450Ab0C1Njt (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Mar 2010 09:39:49 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20100328131112.GA15984@gondor.apana.org.au> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Herbert Xu Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 21:11:12 +0800 > On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 05:53:12AM -0700, David Miller wrote: >> From: Herbert Xu >> Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 16:22:50 +0800 >> >> > My main question is how do we deal with source-address policy >> > routing in a host cache? >> >> We don't, the same like how we don't handle fully specified >> IPSEC policies deciding upon the route. > > I thought we did handle source-address policy routing for PMTU > messages at least. I just checked ip_rt_frag_needed and it does Same for all the other metrics at the TCP level. I guess this is the decision we have to make, what does "host level" metrics mean for us if we decide to move things into the inetpeer cache.