> If you work with atomic route replacement even putting ALL of them > into a netlink message (or as many as you can fit in) works.
What I understand is that we can't (in general) work with atomic *next-hop* replacement (interface index and metric may change). I proposed a workaround where instead of using two distinct messages for "del(r)" and "add(r)" we use one message with "del(r); add(r)". Even if it's not necessarily atomic (is it?), it should be faster (only one system call, since it was what frightened Dave). Matthieu _______________________________________________ Babel-users mailing list Babel-users@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/babel-users
