| To: | toml@xxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: IPSec: Policy dst bundles exhausting storage |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 17 Jun 2003 12:56:29 -0700 (PDT) |
| Cc: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <1055879830.16368.7.camel@tomlt2.tomloffice.austin.ibm.com> |
| References: | <1055879830.16368.7.camel@tomlt2.tomloffice.austin.ibm.com> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
From: Tom Lendacky <toml@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 17 Jun 2003 14:57:04 -0500
That's perfectly fine, a 0-length prefix will cause a matche
on all addresses.
Ok, I just wanted to verify that. Here's a patch for your review.
Looks like it would work.
I call ipv6_addr_prefix on both of the rt6i addresses just in case they
aren't stored in prefix form at any point now or in the future.
I think this is a bit overkill, can you redo this patch without this?
If we un-prefix'ify ipv6 addresses in the routing entries, we're going
to have to go over the whole tree and audit this kind of stuff
anyways.
Thanks.
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: IPSec: Policy dst bundles exhausting storage, Tom Lendacky |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: patch for common networking error messages, Jeff Garzik |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: IPSec: Policy dst bundles exhausting storage, Tom Lendacky |
| Next by Thread: | Re: IPSec: Policy dst bundles exhausting storage, Tom Lendacky |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |