From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: icmp_unreachable uses wrong ip Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 20:15:02 +0200 Message-ID: <4277BFA6.8090306@trash.net> References: <1115040079.5620.11.camel@jeroens.office.netland.nl> <200505022038.22014.hasso@estpak.ee> <4276A400.2050306@trash.net> <200505030944.49175.hasso@estpak.ee> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "J. Simonetti" , netdev@oss.sgi.com Return-path: To: Hasso Tepper In-Reply-To: <200505030944.49175.hasso@estpak.ee> Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Hasso Tepper wrote: > Patrick McHardy wrote: >> >>Your patch can't guarantee that the address used is the same that was >>used as nexthop by the previous hop in the path when multiple addresses >>are configured on the incoming interface. So I don't think it achieves >>much of your goal of making debugging complicated topologies easier. > > At first I don't care what was used as nexthop. I want to know which > physical link was used. Having multiple addresses in the same link is more > corner case in core network anyway. But when multiple addresses are used the result can be even more confusing. I don't like inconsistent behaviour, and this patch works sometimes and sometimes it doesn't. > And can you explain what theoretical possibilities router has to obtain info > what address was used as nexthop by neighbour? I can think of none. Regards Patrick