From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki Subject: Re: [RFC] IPv6 route replacement Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 20:09:10 +0900 Message-ID: <4A66F356.3000803@linux-ipv6.org> References: <20090722095040.GC3517@psychotron.englab.brq.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-2022-JP Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, pekkas@netcore.fi, kaber@trash.net, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org To: Jiri Pirko Return-path: Received: from 94.43.138.210.xn.2iij.net ([210.138.43.94]:41615 "EHLO mail.st-paulia.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750953AbZGVLSK (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Jul 2009 07:18:10 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20090722095040.GC3517@psychotron.englab.brq.redhat.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi, Jiri Pirko wrote: > Now do you think this is the right behaviour? I would expect the first route to > be replaced. The same result is when you do "ip -6 route replace" Well, even in IPv4 you cannot change metric; same route can be installed e.g., for manual backup route entry. But well, NLM_F_REPLACE handler is completely missing in IPv6. I think we are okay with "replace" (NLM_F_CREATE|NLM_F_REPLACE) but we could return "no such route" for "change" (NLM_F_REPLACE). --yoshfuji