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...
my 2c
Stefano
--
*******************************************************************
Stefano Salsano
Professore Associato
Dipartimento Ingegneria Elettronica
Universita' di Roma Tor Vergata
Viale Politecnico, 1 - 00133 Roma - ITALY
http://netgroup.uniroma2.it/Stefano_Salsano/
E-mail : stefano.salsano@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cell. : +39 320 4307310
Office : (Tel.) +39 06 72597770 (Fax.) +39 06 72597435
*******************************************************************
