[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55846278.6000807@cumulusnetworks.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 11:42:00 -0700
From: roopa <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>
To: Robert Shearman <rshearma@...cade.com>
CC: ebiederm@...ssion.com, tgraf@...g.ch, davem@...emloft.net,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC v2 2/3] ipv4: add support for light weight
tunnel encap attributes
On 6/19/15, 10:17 AM, Robert Shearman wrote:
>
> No need for that - use the example of how RTA_MULTIPATH is used for
> ipv4/ipv6:
>
> +----------------------+
> | RTA_MULTIPATH |
> +----------------------+
> | +------------------+ |
> | | struct rtnexthop | |
> | +------------------+ |
> | | RTA_GATEWAY, etc.| |
> | +------------------+ |
> +----------------------+
>
> You could do similar for RTA_ENCAP where the type is stored in the
> data prior to the nested attributes starting. E.g.:
>
> +----------------------+
> | RTA_ENCAP |
> +----------------------+
> | +------------------+ |
> | | struct rtencap | |
> | +------------------+ |
> | | MPLS_IPTUNNEL_DST| |
> | +------------------+ |
> +----------------------+
>
> struct rtencap {
> __u16 rte_type;
> };
I did think about that...but today the rtnextop seems like it was
written a struct initially and then extended with attributes only
because the struct could not be extended (I maybe wrong). But half the
fields are in a struct and the others are attributes. It gets confusing.
And i was trying to avoid that.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
Powered by blists - more mailing lists