[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87y4hjgy6p.fsf@stressinduktion.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 13:50:06 +0200
From: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
To: Zang MingJie <zealot0630@...il.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [BUG] net/ipv4: inconsistent routing table
Hello,
Zang MingJie <zealot0630@...il.com> writes:
> Here comes several options:
>
> 1. reject local next hop w/ EINVAL
> 2. delete route when local next hop removed
Will also cause some people to complain.
> 3. transition between RT_SCOPE_HOST amd RT_SCOPE_LINK
I don't understand the scope transition. I know Alex mentioned it for
the first time. Maybe he can explain?
> 4. document it
I prefer that one :)
> which one should we choose ?
>
> 1 will definitely cause compatibility problem
Agreed.
> 2 is the easiest solution
Will definietely cause some people to complain.
Bye,
Hannes
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists