[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <15470508-47f3-ce7e-420a-085ab6131127@cumulusnetworks.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 11:06:13 -0600
From: David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>
To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 iproute2 0/6] Add support for vrf keyword
On 6/29/16 9:07 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 11:50:55 -0700
> David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com> wrote:
>
>> Currently the syntax for VRF related commands is rather kludgy and
>> inconsistent from one subcommand to another. This set adds support
>> for the VRF keyword to the link, address, neigh, and route commands
>> to improve the user experience listing data associated with vrfs,
>> modifying routes or doing a route lookup.
>>
>> v2
>> - rebased to top of tree
>> - all checkpatch warnings are usage lines. The change in these
>> patches is consistent with existing code for usage lines
>
> Does this break current user scripts?
I don't see how it can. Existing syntax is not touched so if a user
wants to run:
$ ip link show master red
$ ip ro sh table 1001
it still works. Using the vrf keyword just makes for a more natural syntax:
$ ip link show vrf red
$ ip ro sh vrf red
in this case I don't have to lookup what table device red is associated
with ip learns it and shows that table.
>
> It seems this method will cause lots of additional netlink requests
> to check if device is a vrf. Won't this impact users with 1000's of devices?
>
It only adds 1 GETLINK request if the vrf keyword is used. The lookup
verifies the name is actually a VRF. It's really no different than the
ll_name_to_index lookups used when processing the command line
(ll_name_to_index relies on a cache or an ioctl, if_nametoindex).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists