From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Arun Sharma <asharma@fb.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: compute a more reasonable default ip6_rt_max_size
Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 17:44:39 -0700
Message-ID: <4FC02777.5070003@fb.com>
References: <4FC0063E.8080209@fb.com> <20120525.185131.2017517041016424794.davem@davemloft.net> <4FC01F1B.1080009@fb.com> <20120525.201150.1782581593120395710.davem@davemloft.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20120525.201150.1782581593120395710.davem@davemloft.net>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

On 5/25/12 5:11 PM, David Miller wrote:

>> These were not admin configured routes. They were discovered via ipv6
>> neighbor discovery.
>
> Then such default routes should either be:
>
> 1) Passed over by GC
>
> 2) Trigger neighbour discovery when GC'd

It's possible that there is a bug somewhere - we didn't get a chance to 
dig deeper. What we observed is that as we got close to the 4096 limit, 
some hosts were becoming unreachable. A modest increase in the routing 
table size made things better.

  -Arun