From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
To: zhuyj <zyjzyj2000@gmail.com>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
ebiederm@xmission.com, ja@ssi.bg, "Yang,
Zhangle (Eric)" <Zhangle.Yang@windriver.com>,
"Tao, Yue" <Yue.Tao@windriver.com>,
"Zadoyan, Grant" <Grant.Zadoyan@windriver.com>,
eric.dumazet@gmail.com, socketcan@hartkopp.net,
hannes@stressinduktion.org, cwang@twopensource.com
Subject: Re: Should linux send netlink message as it is deleting that routing entry?
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 11:30:42 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140411113042.4328c39c@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5347B2C4.6040103@gmail.com>
On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 17:15:48 +0800
zhuyj <zyjzyj2000@gmail.com> wrote:
> > With ubuntu 12.04, I run the following to reproduce this defect.
> >
> > 1) Configure an interface
> > ifconfig eth1 150.0.0.1/24 up
> >
> > 2) Add routing entry via that interface address
> > route add -net 200.0.0.0/24 gw 150.0.0.1
> >
> > 3) Change the ip address on that interface as shown below.
> > ifconfig eth1 151.0.0.1/24 up
> >
> > 4) Check netlink messages with "ip monitor all". There is no route
> > delete netlink message.
> >
With IPv4 there are several cases where there is a non-notified
implicit route withdrawal. This is not something that can be fixed.
There are two issues:
1. with large backbone size route tables (ie 1M routes), the number
of notification messages becomes a bottleneck and would be unreliable
2. the existing routing daemons (quagga, bird, etc) all understand/expect
the existing semantics
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-04-11 18:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-04-10 8:23 Should linux send netlink message as it is deleting that routing entry? zhuyj
2014-04-11 9:15 ` zhuyj
2014-04-11 18:30 ` Stephen Hemminger [this message]
2014-04-16 10:50 ` zhuyj
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140411113042.4328c39c@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net \
--to=stephen@networkplumber.org \
--cc=Grant.Zadoyan@windriver.com \
--cc=Yue.Tao@windriver.com \
--cc=Zhangle.Yang@windriver.com \
--cc=cwang@twopensource.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=hannes@stressinduktion.org \
--cc=ja@ssi.bg \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=socketcan@hartkopp.net \
--cc=zyjzyj2000@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).