Re: [net-next-2.6 PATCH 1/7] xfrm: introduce basic mark infrastructure

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: jamal
Date: Monday, February 15, 2010 - 11:59 am

On Mon, 2010-02-15 at 18:21 +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote:


I see.
Is there a historical reason why it hasnt been used this way?
Reminds me of the reverse path patch i sent a while back that
caused havoc.. (mark wasnt being used in the reverse path either)


Sounds like a reasonable feature to me.


The main reason it works ok for ipsec/policy-routing is because
user space essentially pins down the kernel path. Could you
not solve it via some user space daemon? First packet/event
to user space, download policies and wait until it expires or
route/tunnel goes down to react..

One of the problems maybe the semantics of what a general purpose
tag like mark being left to either the programmer (as in connmark)
or the admin (tc) - so building a general purpose daemon would have
to enforce some semantic to work ok.

cheers,
jamal

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[net-next-2.6 PATCH 0/7] xfrm by MARK, jamal, (Sun Feb 14, 8:18 am)
Re: [net-next-2.6 PATCH 1/7] xfrm: introduce basic mark in ..., jamal, (Mon Feb 15, 11:59 am)