Re: [PATCH net-next] net: ipv6: put autoconf routes into per-interface tables

2017-01-12 Thread David Ahern
On 1/9/17 7:01 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 1:24 PM, David Ahern wrote: >> Why not use the VRF capability then? create a VRF and assign the interface >> to it. End result is the same -- separate tables and the need to use a >> bind-to-device API

Re: [PATCH net-next] net: ipv6: put autoconf routes into per-interface tables

2017-01-11 Thread Lorenzo Colitti
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 11:11 PM, David Miller wrote: > I understand what you're saying, but if you look at how apps can be > put into hierarchical control groups, and automatically bind to VRF's > based upon where they are in that cgroup hierarchy, it matches your > use case

Re: [PATCH net-next] net: ipv6: put autoconf routes into per-interface tables

2017-01-11 Thread David Miller
From: Lorenzo Colitti Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 02:47:55 +0900 > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:21 PM, Andrey Jr. Melnikov > wrote: >> >> > >>> I have no firsthand experience of this myself, but if the problems >> > >>> that Andrey reports above in this thread

Re: [PATCH net-next] net: ipv6: put autoconf routes into per-interface tables

2017-01-10 Thread Lorenzo Colitti
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:21 PM, Andrey Jr. Melnikov wrote: > > > >>> I have no firsthand experience of this myself, but if the problems > > >>> that Andrey reports above in this thread are real, then those would > > >>> indicate that the code is not well-supported. Being

Re: [PATCH net-next] net: ipv6: put autoconf routes into per-interface tables

2017-01-10 Thread Andrey Jr. Melnikov
David Ahern wrote: > On 1/9/17 8:30 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 12:04 PM, David Ahern > > wrote: > >>> I have no firsthand experience of this myself, but if the problems > >>> that Andrey reports above in this thread

Re: [PATCH net-next] net: ipv6: put autoconf routes into per-interface tables

2017-01-09 Thread David Ahern
On 1/9/17 8:30 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 12:04 PM, David Ahern > wrote: >>> I have no firsthand experience of this myself, but if the problems >>> that Andrey reports above in this thread are real, then those would >>> indicate that the code

Re: [PATCH net-next] net: ipv6: put autoconf routes into per-interface tables

2017-01-09 Thread Lorenzo Colitti
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 12:04 PM, David Ahern wrote: > > I have no firsthand experience of this myself, but if the problems > > that Andrey reports above in this thread are real, then those would > > indicate that the code is not well-supported. Being unable to accept >

Re: [PATCH net-next] net: ipv6: put autoconf routes into per-interface tables

2017-01-09 Thread David Ahern
On 1/9/17 7:29 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:08 AM, David Ahern > wrote: >> That's news to me. What about IPv6 and VRF is not working or well-supported? > > I have no firsthand experience of this myself, but if the problems > that Andrey

Re: [PATCH net-next] net: ipv6: put autoconf routes into per-interface tables

2017-01-09 Thread Lorenzo Colitti
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:08 AM, David Ahern wrote: > That's news to me. What about IPv6 and VRF is not working or well-supported? I have no firsthand experience of this myself, but if the problems that Andrey reports above in this thread are real, then those would

Re: [PATCH net-next] net: ipv6: put autoconf routes into per-interface tables

2017-01-09 Thread David Ahern
On 1/9/17 7:01 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > As others have mentioned, IPv6 on VRFs in client mode is also not > necessarily well-supported at the moment, and I don't know how long it > would take for it to be (assuming it can be made to work properly in > client mode without breaking the primary

Re: [PATCH net-next] net: ipv6: put autoconf routes into per-interface tables

2017-01-09 Thread Lorenzo Colitti
On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 1:24 PM, David Ahern wrote: > Why not use the VRF capability then? create a VRF and assign the interface to > it. End result is the same -- separate tables and the need to use a > bind-to-device API to hit those routes. Requiring that VRFs for

Re: [PATCH net-next] net: ipv6: put autoconf routes into per-interface tables

2017-01-09 Thread Andrey Jr. Melnikov
David Ahern wrote: > On 1/6/17 8:30 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > > This patch adds a per-interface sysctl to have the kernel put > > autoconf routes into different tables. This allows each interface > > to have its own routing table if desired. Choosing the default > >

Re: [PATCH net-next] net: ipv6: put autoconf routes into per-interface tables

2017-01-07 Thread David Ahern
On 1/6/17 8:30 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > This patch adds a per-interface sysctl to have the kernel put > autoconf routes into different tables. This allows each interface > to have its own routing table if desired. Choosing the default > interface, or using different interfaces at the same

[PATCH net-next] net: ipv6: put autoconf routes into per-interface tables

2017-01-06 Thread Lorenzo Colitti
Currently, IPv6 router discovery always puts routes into RT6_TABLE_MAIN. This makes it difficult to maintain and switch between multiple simultaneous network connections (e.g., wifi and wired). To work around this connection managers typically either move autoconfiguration to userspace entirely