[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180612212401.3383c5e4@xeon-e3>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2018 21:24:01 -0700
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@...gle.com>
Cc: Subash Abhinov Kasiviswanathan <subashab@...eaurora.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2-next v2] ip-xfrm: Add support for OUTPUT_MARK
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 12:14:53 +0900
Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 3:48 AM Subash Abhinov Kasiviswanathan
> <subashab@...eaurora.org> wrote:
> >
> > src 192.168.1.1 dst 192.168.1.2
> > proto esp spi 0x00004321 reqid 0 mode tunnel
> > replay-window 0 flag af-unspec
> > mark 0x10000/0x3ffff
> > output-mark 0x20000
>
> Nit: I don't know what guarantees we provide (if any) that the output
> format of "ip xfrm state" does not change except to add new lines at
> the end. Personally, I feel that an app or script that depends on
> "auth-trunc" (or anything else, really) being on the line immediately
> after "mark" is brittle and should be fixed. This is particularly true
> since in general between the mark and the encryption there might be an
> auth-trunc line, or an auth line, or neither. As such, adding this
> line here seems OK to me.
Scripts should use json mode. If it ever gets added to xfrm output (hint).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists