From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hannes Frederic Sowa Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] ipv6 addrconf: add IFA_F_NOPREFIXROUTE flag to suppress creation of IP6 routes Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 13:22:03 +0100 Message-ID: <20140107122203.GC24730@order.stressinduktion.org> References: <20140106160139.GB10204@order.stressinduktion.org> <1389029375-17698-1-git-send-email-thaller@redhat.com> <20140107120111.GB24730@order.stressinduktion.org> <1389096874.2248.7.camel@weing> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Jiri Pirko , netdev@vger.kernel.org, stephen@networkplumber.org, dcbw@redhat.com To: Thomas Haller Return-path: Received: from order.stressinduktion.org ([87.106.68.36]:44887 "EHLO order.stressinduktion.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750840AbaAGMWF (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Jan 2014 07:22:05 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1389096874.2248.7.camel@weing> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Thomas! On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 01:14:34PM +0100, Thomas Haller wrote: > I am about to resent the patch, so that IFA_F_NOPREFIXROUTE is saved in > the flags of the address. Later, when deleting such address, this is > used to indicate ~not~ to delete any prefix route... just as you suggest > in your earlier email (if I understood you right). Ok, good. > About this suggestion now, I tend to "no". Yes, it could be sensible, on > the other hand, if user space already controls the routes (as indicated > by it's use of IFA_F_NOPREFIXROUTES), I would just leave it to the user > to clean up the wrong prefix route. > > What do you think? It is a matter of usability. As prefix routes are added to main routing table and are visible via simple ip -6 r l (and not ip -6 r l table something), I am fine with that, too. Greetings, Hannes