[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20131211.160323.283336557694027073.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 16:03:23 -0500 (EST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: hannes@...essinduktion.org
Cc: jbenc@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] ipv6: router reachability probing
From: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 20:10:23 +0100
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 01:48:20PM +0100, Jiri Benc wrote:
>> RFC 4191 states in 3.5:
>>
>> When a host avoids using any non-reachable router X and instead sends
>> a data packet to another router Y, and the host would have used
>> router X if router X were reachable, then the host SHOULD probe each
>> such router X's reachability by sending a single Neighbor
>> Solicitation to that router's address. A host MUST NOT probe a
>> router's reachability in the absence of useful traffic that the host
>> would have sent to the router if it were reachable. In any case,
>> these probes MUST be rate-limited to no more than one per minute per
>> router.
>>
>> Currently, when the neighbour corresponding to a router falls into
>> NUD_FAILED, it's never considered again. Introduce a new rt6_nud_state
>> value, RT6_NUD_FAIL_PROBE, which suggests the route should not be used but
>> should be probed with a single NS. The probe is ratelimited by the existing
>> code. To better distinguish meanings of the failure values, rename
>> RT6_NUD_FAIL_SOFT to RT6_NUD_FAIL_DO_RR.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jiri Benc <jbenc@...hat.com>
>
> Acked-by: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
>
> Looks good, thanks!
Applied, thanks guys.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists