Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 07:31:27AM CEST, ro...@cumulusnetworks.com wrote:
>On 9/19/16, 7:46 AM, Patrick Ruddy wrote:
>> On Sun, 2016-09-18 at 07:51 -0700, Roopa Prabhu wrote:
>>> On 9/15/16, 9:48 AM, Patrick Ruddy wrote:
>>>> Add RTM_NEWADDR and RTM_DELADDR netlink messages with family
>>>> AF_UNSPEC to indicate interest in specific unicast and multicast
>>>> hardware addresses. These messages are sent when addresses are
>>>> added or deleted from the appropriate interface driver.
>>>> Added AF_UNSPEC GETADDR function to allow the netlink notifications
>>>> to be replayed to avoid loss of state due to application start
>>>> ordering or restart.
>>>> Signed-off-by: Patrick Ruddy <pru...@brocade.com>
>>> RTM_NEWADDR and RTM_DELADDR are not used to add these entries to the kernel.
>>> so, it seems a bit wrong to use RTM_NEWADDR and RTM_DELADDR to notify them
>>> userspace and also to request a special dump of these addresses.
>>> This could just be a new nested netlink attribute in the existing link dump
>> Hi Roopa
>> Thanks for the review. I did initially code this using NEW/DEL/GET_LINK
>> messages but was asked to change to to ADDR messages by Stephen
>> Hemminger (cc'd).
>> However I agree that these addresses fall between the LINK and ADDR
>> areas so I'm happy to change this if we can reach some consensus on the
>ok, thanks for the history. yes, they do lie in a weird spot.
They are l2 addresses, they should be threated accordingly. Am I missing
>the general convention for other rtnl registrations seems to be
>AF_UNSPEC family means include all supported families. thats where this seems
>a bit odd.
>On the other hand, one reason I see where using RTM_*ADDR will be useful for
>this is if we wanted
>to provide a way to add these uc and mc address via ip addr add in the future.
>ip addr add <lladdr> dev eth0
>Does this patch allow that in the future ?
This shoul go under ip link I believe. "ip addr" is for l3.
>also, will these l2 addresses now show up in 'ip addr show' output ?.