[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0806031617310.3438@bizon.gios.gov.pl>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 17:15:04 +0200 (CEST)
From: Krzysztof Oledzki <olel@....pl>
To: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
cc: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix routing tables with id > 255 for legacy software
On Tue, 3 Jun 2008, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 Jun 2008, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>>
>>> Well, if people already use table 253, I guess they might care.
>>
>> Not really as if pople use a FRA_TABLE aware application they should not
>> notice any difference.
>
> In that case not of course.
>
>>> I'm not convinced this is any better than overflowing.
>>
>> But if they use FRA_TABLE unaware application than overflowing means
>> mismatching all:
>> - N*256 table as RT_TABLE_UNSPEC
>> - N*256+253 tables as RT_TABLE_DEFAULT
>> - N*256+254 tables as RT_TABLE_MAIN
>> - N*256+255 tables as RT_TABLE_LOCAL
>>
>> And as I just find out, when it happens is quite unexpected and can really
>> hurt. :(
>>
>>> And I still don't see any other way to handle this properly.
>>
>> Exactly. So that's why I came with above solution, similar to AS_TRANSIT
>> idea used in BGP to handle 16bit -> 32bit ASN transformation.
>
> I think the proper solution is what I wrote in the changelog
> entry: fix userspace applications when using extended table
> IDs.
It is unquestionably true, however it may take some time and people may
still use old version of such applications for whatsoever reasons.
> Your patch makes it more predictable, so I'm not completely
> opposed, but still its just a workaround.
Indeed - it is a workaround but I believe we need it.
Best regards,
Krzysztof Olędzki
Powered by blists - more mailing lists