On 5/27/22 14:31, Arun Ajith S wrote: > This change expands the current implementation to match the RFC. The > sysctl knob is also renamed to accept_untracked_na to better reflect the > implementation. > Say in imperative, "Expand and rename accept_unsolicited na to accept_untracked_na" in both commit/patch subject and message. > -accept_unsolicited_na - BOOLEAN > +accept_untracked_na - BOOLEAN > Add a new neighbour cache entry in STALE state for routers on receiving an > - unsolicited neighbour advertisement with target link-layer address option > - specified. This is as per router-side behavior documented in RFC9131. > - This has lower precedence than drop_unsolicited_na. > + neighbour advertisement with target link-layer address option specified > + if a corresponding entry is not already present. > + This is as per router-side behavior documented in RFC9131. > > - ==== ====== ====== ============================================== > - drop accept fwding behaviour > - ---- ------ ------ ---------------------------------------------- > - 1 X X Drop NA packet and don't pass up the stack > - 0 0 X Pass NA packet up the stack, don't update NC > - 0 1 0 Pass NA packet up the stack, don't update NC > - 0 1 1 Pass NA packet up the stack, and add a STALE > - NC entry > - ==== ====== ====== ============================================== > + This has lower precedence than drop_unsolicited_na. > I think you should have made similar logical expansion of drop_unsolicited_na to drop_untracked_na. Otherwise, ... > /* RFC 9131 updates original Neighbour Discovery RFC 4861. > - * An unsolicited NA can now create a neighbour cache entry > - * on routers if it has Target LL Address option. > + * NAs with Target LL Address option without a corresponding > + * entry in the neighbour cache can now create a STALE neighbour > + * cache entry on routers. > * > - * drop accept fwding behaviour > - * ---- ------ ------ ---------------------------------------------- > - * 1 X X Drop NA packet and don't pass up the stack > - * 0 0 X Pass NA packet up the stack, don't update NC > - * 0 1 0 Pass NA packet up the stack, don't update NC > - * 0 1 1 Pass NA packet up the stack, and add a STALE > - * NC entry > - * Note that we don't do a (daddr == all-routers-mcast) check. > + * entry accept fwding solicited behaviour > + * ------- ------ ------ --------- ---------------------- > + * present X X 0 Set state to STALE > + * present X X 1 Set state to REACHABLE > + * absent 0 X X Do nothing > + * absent 1 0 X Do nothing > + * absent 1 1 X Add a new STALE entry > */ The Documentation/ diff above drops behavior table but in the code comment it is updated. Why didn't update in Documentation/ instead? And my nitpick: for consistency, prefer en-US words over en-UK or mixed varieties when writing (s/behaviour/behavior/gc, s/neighbour/neighbor/gc). -- An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara
