[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20150304.160435.285431782284502041.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 16:04:35 -0500 (EST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: ebiederm@...ssion.com
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/2] Neighbour table prep for MPLS
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 23:53:21 -0600
> We could potentially translate the numbers into the enumeration that is
> NEIGH_ARP_TABLE, NEIGH_ND_TABLE, and NEIGH_DN_TABLE. Or waste a little
> bit of memory in have a 30 entry array and looking things up by address
> protocol number. The only disadvantage I can see to using AF_NNN as
> the index is that it might be a little less cache friendly.
Yes, you can just store NEIGH_*_TABLE in your route entries and
pass that directly into neigh_xmit(), or something like that.
> Other issues the hh header cache doesn't work. (How much do we care).
>
> I worry a little that supporting AF_PACKET case might cause problems
> in the future.
>
> The cumulus folks are probably going to want to use neigh_xmit so they
> can have ipv6 nexthops on ipv4. Using this for IPv4 and loosing the
> header cache worries me a little.
We can have variable hard header caches per neigh entry if we really
want to. The only issue is, again, making the demux simple.
--
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