netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 00/18] net: Improve route scalability via support for nexthop objects

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sun, 02 Sep 2018 10:34:38 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     dsahern@...nel.org
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, roopa@...ulusnetworks.com,
        sharpd@...ulusnetworks.com, idosch@...lanox.com, dsahern@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 00/18] net: Improve route scalability via
 support for nexthop objects

From: dsahern@...nel.org
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 17:49:35 -0700

> Examples
> 1. Single path
>     $ ip nexthop add id 1 via 10.99.1.2 dev veth1
>     $ ip route add 10.1.1.0/24 nhid 1
> 
>     $ ip next ls
>     id 1 via 10.99.1.2 src 10.99.1.1 dev veth1 scope link
> 
>     $ ip ro ls
>     10.1.1.0/24 nhid 1 scope link
>     ...

First of all, this whole idea is awesome!  But, you knew that already. :)

However, I worry what happesn in a mixed environment where we have routing
daemons and tools inserting nexthop based routes, and some doing things
the old way using and expecting inline nexthop information in the routes.

That mixed environment situation has to function correctly.  Older
apps have to see the per-route nexthop info in the format and layout
they expect (gw/dev pairs).  They cannot be expected to just studdenly
understand the nexthop ID etc.

Otherwise the concept and ideas are fine, so as long as you can resolve
the mixed environment situation I fully support this work and look forward
to it being in a state where I can integrate it :-)