From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10 net-next] Introduce per interface ipv4 statistics Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 13:27:46 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20111216.132746.627284368195962110.davem@davemloft.net> References: <1324049163-11207-1-git-send-email-igorm@etf.rs> <1324050080.25554.34.camel@edumazet-HP-Compaq-6005-Pro-SFF-PC> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: igorm@etf.rs, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: eric.dumazet@gmail.com Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([198.137.202.13]:56826 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760388Ab1LPS1y (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Dec 2011 13:27:54 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1324050080.25554.34.camel@edumazet-HP-Compaq-6005-Pro-SFF-PC> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Eric Dumazet Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 16:41:20 +0100 > 1) Why is it needed ? Any RFC requires this bloat ? I'm not allowing something like this into ipv4, there are too many terrible side effects in ipv6 because we do it there. The mere necessity of having to have some device handle at every single packet processing spot is incredibly painful, and makes changes in the ipv6 packet paths 10 times more difficult than they otherwise would be. I'm not allowing this difficulty to be added to the ipv4 side as well.