[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3f6540b8-aeab-02f8-27bc-d78c9eba588c@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2022 21:50:01 -0700
From: David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>
To: "Xiao, Jiguang" <Jiguang.Xiao@...driver.com>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org" <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
"kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: "Pudak, Filip" <Filip.Pudak@...driver.com>
Subject: Re: This counter "ip6InNoRoutes" does not follow the RFC4293
specification implementation
On 3/8/22 7:16 PM, Xiao, Jiguang wrote:
> Hi David
>
> To confirm whether my test method is correct, could you please briefly describe your test procedure?
>
>
>
no formal test. Code analysis (ip6_pkt_discard{,_out} -> ip6_pkt_drop)
shows the counters that should be incrementing and then looking at the
counters on a local server.
FIB Lookup failures should generate a dst with one of these handlers:
static void ip6_rt_init_dst_reject(struct rt6_info *rt, u8 fib6_type)
{
rt->dst.error = ip6_rt_type_to_error(fib6_type);
switch (fib6_type) {
case RTN_BLACKHOLE:
rt->dst.output = dst_discard_out;
rt->dst.input = dst_discard;
break;
case RTN_PROHIBIT:
rt->dst.output = ip6_pkt_prohibit_out;
rt->dst.input = ip6_pkt_prohibit;
break;
case RTN_THROW:
case RTN_UNREACHABLE:
default:
rt->dst.output = ip6_pkt_discard_out;
rt->dst.input = ip6_pkt_discard;
break;
}
}
They all drop the packet with a given counter bumped.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists