From: Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 13:59:22 -0400 > On 09/10/2012 01:18 PM, David Miller wrote: >> From: Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@xxxxxxxxx> >> Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 10:35:03 -0400 >> >>> I am not sure this is right... This has a side-effect that when an >>> rt_cache_flush() is called, it invalidates IPv6 routes a well.... >>> >>> Its all fine and good do this when a new policy is added, but not when >>> IPv4 routing table changes. >> >> I disagree. >> > > So you are perfectly ok with invalidating IPv6 cache when IPv4 table > changes, but not invalidating IPv4 cache if IPv6 table changes? Due to tunneling I can't see how this is avoidable? We do ipv6 over ipv4, but not vice-versa. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sctp" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
