Erik Nordmark writes: > James Carlson wrote: > > I'd suggest both route(1M) and route(7P). The latter is what routing > > protocol authors are supposed to be reading. > > OK. > Do you want to see draft man pages? (It would essenntially be my "two > things" text above.)
No need; the discussion has cleared this up for me. > > Yep; that's how BSD works. > > > > It has RTF_CLONING for the former route, to indicate that when you > > match it, you need to create a cloned route, and RTF_CLONED to mark > > the entries that were created by the cloning process. > > > > http://www.daemon-systems.org/man/route.8.html > > And I think RTF_CLONED maps to 'W' if I don't misremember. Would it make > sense to use 'W' instead of 'C' for Solaris in this context? The table that I know about is in here: http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/~checkout~/src/usr.bin/netstat/netstat.1?rev=1.51&content-type=text/plain ... and it maps RTF_CLONING to 'C' and RTF_CLONED to 'c'. I don't know of a flag that maps to 'W', but I guess it's possible that was done on some system. Lining up with BSD would be a nice thing, if possible, but if we have to be different, I wouldn't complain too much. > Note that right now the refactor-gate implementation for local > connections doesn't have visibility to the port numbers when it does the > ECMP behavior. We'd to fix that to get better spreading. I'm not sure I follow. I thought that the selection mechanism for local connections was described as round-robin. How would port numbers or any ECMP get involved with that? (I agree that if you're doing ECMP, the more flow-identifying stuff you can get in there, the better. But that might be tending towards design review ...) > > What other code (besides the TCP/IP stack) sends M_MULTIDATA? It was > > a private interface, and I don't know of any other users. > > > > If we're disabling multidata, then why not start the process of > > removing this old stuff? We could at least start the notification > > process on the MDT contracts. > > Not enough hours in a day, and I don't want to spend those few hours on > debating whether or not Cassini is the best Ethernet driver ever. > (As far as I know Cassini is the only driver that uses multidata.) At least to me, that's not quite the point. We're _breaking_ that previous feature by permanently disabling it. I think that may well be a good thing -- I can believe that we get acceptably good performance without the complication of MDT -- but I don't think it's useful to say that those things are still "supported" but simply never work. Would we say we "support" LSO but then never allow anyone to use it? I think doing this cleanly means obsoleting those old interfaces properly. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson at sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
