[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.11.1401231158510.2682@ja.home.ssi.bg>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 12:06:30 +0200 (EET)
From: Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg>
To: Sergey Popovich <popovich_sergei@...l.ru>
cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] ipv4: mark nexthop as dead when it's subnet becomes
unreachable
Hello,
On Tue, 21 Jan 2014, Sergey Popovich wrote:
> + if (nexthop_nh->nh_dev != dev ||
> + nexthop_nh->nh_scope == scope ||
> + (ifa && !inet_ifa_match(nexthop_nh->nh_gw, ifa)))
What if nh_gw is part from another smaller/larger subnet?
For example, what if we still have 10.0.0.200/8 ? 10.0.10.5 is
still reachable, i.e. fib_check_nh() would create such NH.
IMHO, marking NH by exact nh_gw looks more acceptable because
the exact GW becomes unreachable. Otherwise, you will need
fib_lookup() as in fib_check_nh() to check that NH becomes
unreachable.
Regards
--
Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg>
--
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