Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 1/4] ipv4: fib_rules: support match on sport, dport and ip proto

2018-02-13 Thread Ben Greear
On 02/12/2018 04:03 PM, David Miller wrote: From: Eric Dumazet Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 13:54:59 -0800 We had project/teams using different routing tables for each vlan they setup :/ Indeed, people use FIB rules and think they can scale in software. As currently

Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 1/4] ipv4: fib_rules: support match on sport, dport and ip proto

2018-02-13 Thread Roopa Prabhu
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 8:34 AM, David Miller wrote: > From: Roopa Prabhu > Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 08:19:35 -0800 > >> - Regardless of this series, I think we should optimize ip rules or >> have a new implementation of policy based routing. happy

Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 1/4] ipv4: fib_rules: support match on sport, dport and ip proto

2018-02-13 Thread David Miller
From: Roopa Prabhu Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 08:19:35 -0800 > - Regardless of this series, I think we should optimize ip rules or > have a new implementation of policy based routing. happy to hear about > possible options here: > - optimize the existing

Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 1/4] ipv4: fib_rules: support match on sport, dport and ip proto

2018-02-13 Thread Roopa Prabhu
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 4:03 PM, David Miller wrote: > From: Eric Dumazet > Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 13:54:59 -0800 > >> We had project/teams using different routing tables for each vlan they >> setup :/ > > Indeed, people use FIB rules and think they

Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 1/4] ipv4: fib_rules: support match on sport, dport and ip proto

2018-02-12 Thread David Miller
From: Eric Dumazet Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 13:54:59 -0800 > We had project/teams using different routing tables for each vlan they > setup :/ Indeed, people use FIB rules and think they can scale in software. As currently implemented, they can't. The example you give

Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 1/4] ipv4: fib_rules: support match on sport, dport and ip proto

2018-02-12 Thread David Ahern
On 2/12/18 2:54 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Mon, 2018-02-12 at 16:05 -0500, David Miller wrote: >> From: Eric Dumazet >> Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 12:49:33 -0800 >> >>> Any setup with about 20 rules to be evaluated (per packet cost) will >>> feel the pain... >>> >>> I wonder

Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 1/4] ipv4: fib_rules: support match on sport, dport and ip proto

2018-02-12 Thread Eric Dumazet
On Mon, 2018-02-12 at 16:05 -0500, David Miller wrote: > From: Eric Dumazet > Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 12:49:33 -0800 > > > Any setup with about 20 rules to be evaluated (per packet cost) will > > feel the pain... > > > > I wonder if we could JIT/eBPF this thing. > >

Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 1/4] ipv4: fib_rules: support match on sport, dport and ip proto

2018-02-12 Thread David Ahern
On 2/12/18 2:05 PM, David Miller wrote: > From: Eric Dumazet > Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 12:49:33 -0800 > >> Any setup with about 20 rules to be evaluated (per packet cost) will >> feel the pain... >> >> I wonder if we could JIT/eBPF this thing. I had the same comments --

Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 1/4] ipv4: fib_rules: support match on sport, dport and ip proto

2018-02-12 Thread David Miller
From: Eric Dumazet Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 12:49:33 -0800 > Any setup with about 20 rules to be evaluated (per packet cost) will > feel the pain... > > I wonder if we could JIT/eBPF this thing. That's true for the software implementation angle. But I bet anyone actually

Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 1/4] ipv4: fib_rules: support match on sport, dport and ip proto

2018-02-12 Thread Eric Dumazet
On Sun, 2018-02-11 at 14:26 -0800, Roopa Prabhu wrote: > From: Roopa Prabhu > > Add support to match on src port, dst port and ip protocol. > > Signed-off-by: Roopa Prabhu > --- > include/uapi/linux/fib_rules.h | 3 +++ >