On 2/4/25 10:00 AM, Felix Huettner wrote:
>>> +static int
>>> +modify_route(uint32_t type, uint32_t flags_arg, uint32_t table_id,
>>> + const struct in6_addr *dst, unsigned int plen)
>>> +{
>>> + uint32_t flags = NLM_F_REQUEST | NLM_F_ACK;
>>> + bool is_ipv4 = IN6_IS_ADDR_V4MAPPED(dst);
>>> + struct ofpbuf request;
>>> + struct rtmsg *rt;
>>> + int err;
>>> +
>>> + flags |= flags_arg;
>>> +
>>> + ofpbuf_init(&request, 0);
>>> + nl_msg_put_nlmsghdr(&request, 0, type, flags);
>>> + rt = ofpbuf_put_zeros(&request, sizeof *rt);
>>> + rt->rtm_family = is_ipv4 ? AF_INET : AF_INET6;
>>> + rt->rtm_table = RT_TABLE_UNSPEC; /* RTA_TABLE attribute allows id >
>>> 256 */
>>> + /* Manage only OVN routes */
>>> + rt->rtm_protocol = RTPROT_OVN;
>>> + rt->rtm_type = RTN_BLACKHOLE;
>>> + if (type == RTM_DELROUTE) {
>>> + rt->rtm_scope = RT_SCOPE_NOWHERE;
>>> + } else {
>>> + rt->rtm_scope = RT_SCOPE_UNIVERSE;
>>> + }
>> I'm not sure I understand why on delete we need to set the scope to
>> RT_SCOPE_NOWHERE.. I didn't try passing RT_SCOPE_UNIVERSE for both
>> cases but would that cause issues?
> Not sure, but using RT_SCOPE_UNIVERSE generally just works.
In that case I think I'd prefer we use the same values when
adding/deleting the route - in this case RT_SCOPE_UNIVERSE.
Thanks,
Dumitru
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
