[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20170814.222446.2291698336308702761.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 22:24:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: jiri@...nulli.us
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, arkadis@...lanox.com, idosch@...lanox.com,
mlxsw@...lanox.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next 0/2] mlxsw: Add support for nexthop group
consolidation for IPv6
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 21:09:18 +0200
> From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>
>
> Arkadi says:
>
> Due to limited ASIC resources the maximum number of routes is limited by
> the nexthop resource. In order to improve the routing scale nexthop
> consolidation should be performed.
>
> In case of IPv4, the kernel does the consolidation of nexthops in the form
> of the fib_info struct. In that case, the driver uses the fib_info's
> address as a key for the internal nexthop group representative struct
> lookup. In case of IPv6, the kernel doesn't do consolidation, thus the
> driver should implement it by itself.
>
> The hash value is calculated based on the nexthop set, by performing
> bitwise xor on the ifindexs of the nexthops, in a similar way to IPV4's
> kernel implementation. In case of collision a full match is performed
> between the sets which include address and ifindex comparison.
>
> In order to use the same hash table in both cases (IPv4/6), the rhashtable
> is changed to operate on variable length key.
Series applied, thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists