[Top] [All Lists]

Re: nfmark routing in ip_route_output()

To: rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Rusty Russell)
Subject: Re: nfmark routing in ip_route_output()
From: kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 20:30:21 +0400 (MSK DST)
Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20000812173439.285B58172@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> from "Rusty Russell" at Aug 13, 0 03:34:39 am
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx

> Can we add an argument for nfmark field in ip_route_output()?  Needed
> so local traffic can be routed in complex ways (mark altered in

To say is that I dislike this is to say nothing.

If you have an skb to reroute, reroute skb.

If you do not want to depend on skb, add new function using
rt_key as argument. You may even replace ip_route_output()
with this new function everywhere, it will be a bit slower,
but it is worth to do, because has lots of useful applications
not bound to nfmark.

But adding new argument (and with such name, which cries to be
#ifdef'd) to function used mainly in context, where there
are no way to set something but zero is strange idea.

> The other option is less invasive: make route_me_harder call
> ip_route_output_slow() directly, and simply add the parameter there.

But why did you select _more_ invasive way then? 8)

I can answer to myself. It is easy to see from name of this function,
look at it more carefully.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>