From: Ido Schimmel <idosch@idosch.org>
To: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
Cc: Ido Schimmel <idosch@mellanox.com>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net,
roopa@cumulusnetworks.com, nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com,
mlxsw@mellanox.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 13/19] ipv6: Flush all sibling routes upon NETDEV_UNREGISTER
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 09:50:57 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180103075057.GC761@splinter> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f039daf9-fe6f-0a9a-e04c-2b272ce4f035@gmail.com>
On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 10:42:51AM -0700, David Ahern wrote:
> On 12/31/17 9:15 AM, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> > IPv4 and IPv6 react differently to a netdev being unregistered. In IPv4,
> > in case the netdev is used as a nexthop device in a multipath route, the
> > entire route is flushed.
> >
> > However, IPv6 only removes the nexthops associated with the unregistered
> > netdev.
> >
> > Align IPv4 and IPv6 and flush all the sibling routes when a nexthop
> > device is unregistered.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ido Schimmel <idosch@mellanox.com>
> > ---
> > net/ipv6/route.c | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> > 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> not so sure about this one.
Yea, I wasn't sure about it either. I'll drop it and fix the tests
accordingly.
> When we get to nexthops as separate objects, we can bring in consistency
> by allowing ipv4 routes to just drop a single nexthop in the route
> versus the behavior today.
Agreed.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-01-03 7:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-12-31 16:14 [RFC PATCH net-next 00/19] ipv6: Align nexthop behaviour with IPv4 Ido Schimmel
2017-12-31 16:14 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 01/19] ipv6: Remove redundant route flushing during namespace dismantle Ido Schimmel
2017-12-31 16:14 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 02/19] ipv6: Mark dead nexthops with appropriate flags Ido Schimmel
2017-12-31 16:14 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 03/19] ipv6: Clear nexthop flags upon netdev up Ido Schimmel
2018-01-02 16:20 ` David Ahern
2018-01-03 7:44 ` Ido Schimmel
2018-01-03 15:32 ` David Ahern
2018-01-03 16:43 ` Ido Schimmel
2018-01-03 16:56 ` David Ahern
2018-01-03 17:40 ` Ido Schimmel
2018-01-03 18:47 ` David Ahern
2018-01-03 20:53 ` Ido Schimmel
2018-01-03 23:08 ` David Ahern
2017-12-31 16:14 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 04/19] ipv6: Prepare to handle multiple netdev events Ido Schimmel
2018-01-02 16:29 ` David Ahern
2018-01-03 7:46 ` Ido Schimmel
2017-12-31 16:14 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 05/19] ipv6: Set nexthop flags upon carrier change Ido Schimmel
2017-12-31 16:15 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 06/19] ipv6: Set nexthop flags during route creation Ido Schimmel
2017-12-31 16:15 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 07/19] ipv6: Check nexthop flags during route lookup instead of carrier Ido Schimmel
2017-12-31 16:15 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 08/19] ipv6: Check nexthop flags in route dump " Ido Schimmel
2017-12-31 16:15 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 09/19] ipv6: Ignore dead routes during lookup Ido Schimmel
2017-12-31 16:15 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 10/19] ipv6: Report dead flag during route dump Ido Schimmel
2017-12-31 16:15 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 11/19] ipv6: Add explicit flush indication to routes Ido Schimmel
2017-12-31 16:15 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 12/19] ipv6: Teach tree walker to skip multipath routes Ido Schimmel
2017-12-31 16:15 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 13/19] ipv6: Flush all sibling routes upon NETDEV_UNREGISTER Ido Schimmel
2018-01-02 17:42 ` David Ahern
2018-01-03 7:50 ` Ido Schimmel [this message]
2017-12-31 16:15 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 14/19] ipv6: Export sernum update function Ido Schimmel
2017-12-31 16:15 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 15/19] ipv6: Take table lock outside of " Ido Schimmel
2017-12-31 16:15 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 16/19] ipv6: Flush multipath routes when all siblings are dead Ido Schimmel
2018-01-02 17:38 ` David Ahern
2018-01-03 7:54 ` Ido Schimmel
2017-12-31 16:15 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 17/19] selftests: fib_tests: Add test cases for IPv4/IPv6 FIB Ido Schimmel
2017-12-31 16:15 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 18/19] selftests: fib_tests: Add test cases for netdev down Ido Schimmel
2017-12-31 16:15 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 19/19] selftests: fib_tests: Add test cases for netdev carrier change Ido Schimmel
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=20180103075057.GC761@splinter \
--to=idosch@idosch.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dsahern@gmail.com \
--cc=idosch@mellanox.com \
--cc=mlxsw@mellanox.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com \
--cc=roopa@cumulusnetworks.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).