On 11/13/20 10:02 AM, Stefano Salsano wrote: > Il 2020-11-13 17:55, Jakub Kicinski ha scritto: >> On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 18:49:17 -0700 David Ahern wrote: >>> On 11/12/20 6:28 PM, Andrea Mayer wrote: >>>> The implementation of SRv6 End.DT4 differs from the the >>>> implementation of SRv6 >>>> End.DT6 due to the different *route input* lookup functions. For >>>> IPv6 is it >>>> possible to force the routing lookup specifying a routing table >>>> through the >>>> ip6_pol_route() function (as it is done in the >>>> seg6_lookup_any_nexthop()). >>> >>> It is unfortunate that the IPv6 variant got in without the VRF piece. >> >> Should we make it a requirement for this series to also extend the v6 >> version to support the preferred VRF-based operation? Given VRF is >> better and we require v4 features to be implemented for v6? > > I think it is better to separate the two aspects... adding a missing > feature in IPv4 datapath should not depend on improving the quality of > the implementation of the IPv6 datapath :-) > > I think that Andrea is willing to work on improving the IPv6 > implementation, but this should be considered after this patchset... > agreed. The v6 variant has existed for a while. The v4 version is independent.
