[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131212012115.GE4675@order.stressinduktion.org>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 02:21:15 +0100
From: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
To: Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
Cc: Jiri Benc <jbenc@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] ipv6: router reachability probing
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 12:12:36AM +0100, Michal Kubecek wrote:
> 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.
>
> Is it really the case in current mainline kernels? In my tests, this
> behaviour in 3.0 kernel (SLES 11 SP3) was caused by the reference held
> by struct dst_entry which caused that in neigh_periodic_work(),
> n->refcnt was always bigger than one so that the neighbour entry was
> never cleaned up. But when I tested with 3.11.6 (OpenSuSE 13.1) where
> neighbour is no longer cached in struct dst_entry, the neighbour was
> cleaned up eventually and new lookup was performed.
IMHO the wording is a big too strong. The *particular* neighbour is
never considered again as long as it survives in the NUD_FAILED state
(depending on the state of the reference counter this could be between
base_reachable_time and infinity in case of bugs ;) ).
But probing should happen at least every 60 seconds (or
router_probe_interval), which did not happen before this patch.
> I believe the patch would be useful anyway as it would speed up the
> detection that the router is reachable again, I just want to make sure
> my analysis wasn't completely wrong.
Yeah, I think your analysis is correct. Also you can see that (at least) I did
not considered this worth for -stable but only for net-next. ;)
Greetings,
Hannes
--
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