On 08/23/15 at 08:01pm, David Ahern wrote: > On 8/23/15 6:15 PM, Thomas Graf wrote: > >On 08/23/15 at 08:26am, David Ahern wrote: > >>inetpeer caches based on address only, so duplicate IP addresses within > >>a namespace return the same cached entry. Similar to IP fragments handle > >>duplicate addresses across VRFs by adding the VRF master device index to > >>the lookup. > > > >We have a lot of other places which use the address only. Are you > >going to add the VRF id to all these places as well? > > > > If appropriate, yes. I have fixed IP fragments and this patch fixes inetpeer > cache. In both cases (L3 artifacts) the vrf device index provides the means > to uniquely identify duplicate IP addresses within a namespace. If you know > of other code that might be impacted I will investigate and fix as needed.
OK, then the question is what do you consider appropriate? ;-) An obvious example is netfilter conntrack but eventually any decision based on an address would require the VRF id if you want to go all the way. I see the advantages over netns based VRF right now due to the lightweight nature but if this turns out to require a new field in practically every address datastructure then that seems not what we want. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
