On Sat, 14 Nov 2020 00:00:24 +0100 Andrea Mayer wrote: > On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 13:40:10 -0800 > Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 11:40:36 -0800 Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > DaveM raised a concern that unless we implement v6 now we can't be sure > > the interface we create for v4 is going to fit there. > > > > So Andrea unless it's a major hurdle, could you take a stab at the v6 > > version with VRFs as part of this series? > > I can tackle the v6 version but how do we face the compatibility issue raised > by Stefano in his message? > > if it is ok to implement a uAPI that breaks the existing scripts, it is relatively > easy to replicate the VRF-based approach also in v6. We need to keep existing End.DT6 as is, and add a separate implementation. The way to distinguish between the two could be either by passing via netlink a flag attribute (which would request use of VRF in both cases); using a different attribute than SEG6_LOCAL_TABLE for the table id (or perhaps passing VRF's ifindex instead), e.g. SEG6_LOCAL_TABLE_VRF; or adding a new command (SEG6_LOCAL_ACTION_END_DT6_VRF) which would behave like End.DT4.
