[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20201114000024.614c6c097050188abc87a7ff@uniroma2.it>
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2020 00:00:24 +0100
From: Andrea Mayer <andrea.mayer@...roma2.it>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
Stefano Salsano <stefano.salsano@...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>,
Andrea Mayer <andrea.mayer@...roma2.it>
Subject: Re: [net-next,v2,4/5] seg6: add support for the SRv6 End.DT4
behavior
Hi Jakub,
On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 13:40:10 -0800
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 11:40:36 -0800 Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> DaveM raised a concern that unless we implement v6 now we can't be sure
> the interface we create for v4 is going to fit there.
>
> So Andrea unless it's a major hurdle, could you take a stab at the v6
> version with VRFs as part of this series?
I can tackle the v6 version but how do we face the compatibility issue raised
by Stefano in his message?
if it is ok to implement a uAPI that breaks the existing scripts, it is relatively
easy to replicate the VRF-based approach also in v6.
Waiting for your advice!
Thanks,
Andrea
Powered by blists - more mailing lists