[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Move fib_alias out of fib_hash.c

To: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Move fib_alias out of fib_hash.c
From: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 00:09:26 +0200
Cc: Steven Blake <slblake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Robert.Olsson@xxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20040929142750.27b35952.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20040928214722.11aef8e0.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <16730.53965.503605.943263@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040929125359.12a00ba7.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1096492842.2344.57.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040929142750.27b35952.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 02:27:50PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 17:20:43 -0400
> Steven Blake <slblake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > It can also
> > > be the case that the longest matching prefix entry has no matching
> > > TOS key, whereas a shorter prefix does.
> > 
> > No routing protocols are distributing TOS-specific routes, and there is
> > no prospect of that feature ever coming back.  Why pay the cost of
> > matching TOS on every packet forwarded?
> Because once we add functionality to the kernel we can't simply
> rip it out.  People do use TOS routing, via static routes or
> similar.

I'm not so sure anybody uses it really. How about adding a printk for it 
and seeing if anybody complains? 


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