On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 10:04:44 -0700 David Ahern wrote: > 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. Okay, I'm not sure what's the right call so I asked DaveM. TBH I wasn't expecting this reaction, we're talking about a 200 LoC patch which would probably be 90% reused for v6...
