On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 20:19 +0100, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > Right. This is not percpu as in IPv4. > > I can send a follow up patch to get this in sync with the way we do it > in IPv4, ie. add percpu socket. > > Fine with this approach? Thanks!
Not really. percpu sockets are going to slow down network namespace creation / deletion and increase memory foot print. IPv6 is cleaner because it does not really have to use different sockets. Ultimately would would like to have the same for IPv4. I would rather carry the mark either in an additional parameter, or in the flow that is already passed as a parameter.
