[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201113114036.18e40b32@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2020 11:40:36 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Cc: Stefano Salsano <stefano.salsano@...roma2.it>,
Andrea Mayer <andrea.mayer@...roma2.it>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Shrijeet Mukherjee <shrijeet@...il.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
Paolo Lungaroni <paolo.lungaroni@...t.it>,
Ahmed Abdelsalam <ahabdels.dev@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next,v2,4/5] seg6: add support for the SRv6 End.DT4
behavior
On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 10:04:44 -0700 David Ahern wrote:
> On 11/13/20 10:02 AM, Stefano Salsano wrote:
> > Il 2020-11-13 17:55, Jakub Kicinski ha scritto:
> >> On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 18:49:17 -0700 David Ahern wrote:
> >>> On 11/12/20 6:28 PM, Andrea Mayer wrote:
> >>>> The implementation of SRv6 End.DT4 differs from the the
> >>>> implementation of SRv6
> >>>> End.DT6 due to the different *route input* lookup functions. For
> >>>> IPv6 is it
> >>>> possible to force the routing lookup specifying a routing table
> >>>> through the
> >>>> ip6_pol_route() function (as it is done in the
> >>>> seg6_lookup_any_nexthop()).
> >>>
> >>> It is unfortunate that the IPv6 variant got in without the VRF piece.
> >>
> >> Should we make it a requirement for this series to also extend the v6
> >> version to support the preferred VRF-based operation? Given VRF is
> >> better and we require v4 features to be implemented for v6?
> >
> > I think it is better to separate the two aspects... adding a missing
> > feature in IPv4 datapath should not depend on improving the quality of
> > the implementation of the IPv6 datapath :-)
> >
> > I think that Andrea is willing to work on improving the IPv6
> > implementation, but this should be considered after this patchset...
>
> agreed. The v6 variant has existed for a while. The v4 version is
> independent.
Okay, I'm not sure what's the right call so I asked DaveM.
TBH I wasn't expecting this reaction, we're talking about a 200 LoC
patch which would probably be 90% reused for v6...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists