From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: ipv6 hitting route max_size Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2011 16:28:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20110606.162848.555622812215058188.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20110606213727.GB11757@hostway.ca> <20110606.150142.2071869702137894615.davem@davemloft.net> <20110606231521.GB22559@hostway.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org To: sim@hostway.ca Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([198.137.202.13]:56987 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752352Ab1FFX3x (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Jun 2011 19:29:53 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20110606231521.GB22559@hostway.ca> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Simon Kirby Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 16:15:21 -0700 > On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 03:01:42PM -0700, David Miller wrote: > >> From: Simon Kirby >> Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 14:37:27 -0700 >> >> > /proc/sys/net/ipv6/route/max_size and a number of similar GC knobs exist, >> > but max_size seems to limit the size of the v6 route table, not the v6 >> > route cache. >> >> There is no v6 route cache. >> >> Instead of a routing cache, ipv6 route lookups "clone" new routes into >> the same datastructre the route table is stored in. > > Ok, makes sense, but the result is now that ipv4 loads a full Internet > table with no adjustments, while ipv6 does not. Would it make sense to > change 4096 to 1048576, or would it be better to count only clones of > the actual route or something along those lines? The latter is probably the way to handle this problem.