| To: | jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: 802.1q Was (Re: Plans for 2.5 / 2.6 ??? |
| From: | Mitchell Blank Jr <mitch@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 5 Jun 2000 05:53:44 -0700 |
| Cc: | Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, rob@xxxxxxxxxxx, buytenh@xxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, gleb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.GSO.4.20.0006050718320.18153-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from hadi@xxxxxxxxxx on Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 07:34:57AM -0400 |
| References: | <393B414B.ACF84B1B@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.GSO.4.20.0006050718320.18153-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
> Indeed the routing slow path is affected and i would think this is very > critical. Could someone enumerate the EXACT conditions this occurs (IP using inet_select_addr to linearly go through each device looking for ok link-scope routes rather than using the normal routing table) Remember that inet_select_addr() will only do the search of all devices if it didn't find a matchin in the specified device's ifa. I suspect this is a rare occurance, but I could be wrong I guess. -Mitch |
| Previous by Date: | Re: 802.1q Was (Re: Plans for 2.5 / 2.6 ???, Andrey Savochkin |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: 802.1q Was (Re: Plans for 2.5 / 2.6 ???, Mitchell Blank Jr |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: 802.1q Was (Re: Plans for 2.5 / 2.6 ???, jamal |
| Next by Thread: | Re: 802.1q Was (Re: Plans for 2.5 / 2.6 ???, Mitchell Blank Jr |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |