Re: [RFC PATCH] xfrm: fix handling of XFRM policies mark and mask.

Hello, Le 7 févr. 2013 à 13:54, Steffen Klassert a écrit : > On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 12:08:22PM +0100, Emmanuel Thierry wrote: >> >> This is a nice idea, however you keep the insertion asymmetric. The usage of >> xfrm marks in non-conflicting cases will be made p

Re: [RFC PATCH] xfrm: fix handling of XFRM policies mark and mask.

Le 7 févr. 2013 à 12:08, Emmanuel Thierry a écrit : > Hello, > > Le 7 févr. 2013 à 11:49, Steffen Klassert a > écrit : > >> On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 02:53:48PM +0100, Emmanuel Thierry wrote: >>> >>> Le 6 févr. 2013 à 14:14, jamal a écrit : >&g

Re: [RFC PATCH] xfrm: fix handling of XFRM policies mark and mask.

Hello, Le 7 févr. 2013 à 11:49, Steffen Klassert a écrit : > On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 02:53:48PM +0100, Emmanuel Thierry wrote: >> >> Le 6 févr. 2013 à 14:14, jamal a écrit : >> >>> >>> On 13-02-05 03:12 AM, Steffen Klassert wrote: >>>>

Re: [RFC PATCH] xfrm: fix handling of XFRM policies mark and mask.

Le 6 févr. 2013 à 15:30, Jamal Hadi Salim a écrit : > On 13-02-06 08:53 AM, Emmanuel Thierry wrote: >> Actually, we didn't think about this problem since we work with priorities, >> putting the default policy (without a mark) at a minor priority than the >> marked on

Re: [RFC PATCH] xfrm: fix handling of XFRM policies mark and mask.

n policy insertion, the policy were inserted depending on the accuracy of the mark (the more the mask is specific, the more the mark must be put at the beginning of the list), how would we decide which is the more specific between these ones ? ip -6 xfrm policy add src fd00::1/128 dst fd00::2/1