From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2] Revert "iproute: "list/flush/save default"
 selected all of the routes"
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 09:01:35 -0700
Message-ID: <20180327090135.7d60b796@xeon-e3>
References: <20180312210301.12757-1-stephen@networkplumber.org>
        <1520890670.31389.1.camel@debian.org>
        <3677951520930804@web6j.yandex.ru>
        <1084221520939138@web32g.yandex.ru>
        <1520942521.12414.1.camel@debian.org>
        <3ebb9805-fb69-c67d-6222-c6d1d344f4ec@msu.ru>
        <135881521017992@web3o.yandex.ru>
        <2ee0179a-79c8-8504-afe1-6310ed4e858b@msu.ru>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Serhey Popovych <serhe.popovych@gmail.com>,
        Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org>,
        "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
To: Alexander Zubkov <green@msu.ru>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-pg0-f43.google.com ([74.125.83.43]:34751 "EHLO
        mail-pg0-f43.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1752043AbeC0QBl (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Tue, 27 Mar 2018 12:01:41 -0400
Received: by mail-pg0-f43.google.com with SMTP id q6so627707pgr.1
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 09:01:41 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <2ee0179a-79c8-8504-afe1-6310ed4e858b@msu.ru>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 21:26:40 +0100
Alexander Zubkov <green@msu.ru> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> For example, it can be fixed in such way (patch is below):
> - split handling of default and all/any
> - set needed attributes in get_addr: PREFIXLEN_SPECIFIED flag for default
> - and AF_UNSPEC for all/any
> In this case "ip route show default" shows only default route and "ip 
> route show all" shows all routes. And both also work when family (-4 or 
> -6) is specified.
> Serhey, does it goes in line with what you wanted to achieve? Because I 
> do not know - may be there are reasons why all/any should be provided 
> with specific family. If you think this solution is suitable, I'll do 
> some additional tests and package the patch in a proper way for this 
> mailing list.
> And I'm unsure if check for AF_DECnet and AF_MPLS should be kept in both 
> branches. May be someone have some additional thoughts on that?
> 

I applied this to master.

We can work on the other cases after that.