* Ville Nuorvala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2006-08-09 11:36 > Of the three original route lookup functions (ip6_route_input, > ip6_route_output and rt6_lookup), rt6_lookup was the only one that was > allowed to produce a NULL entry. Of these three rt6_lookup was also the > only one not actually being used for routing. > > The function that absolutely requires ip6_null_entry is ip6_route_input.
It would mean to change the logic of handling route errors like in the IPv4 path and not handle them in .input/.output. Instead of a dst we'd return a valid dst or a ERR_PTR() which would force the caller to take appropriate actions such as updating statistics and sending ICMPs. > There is also one more issue with ip6_null_entry: previously it has > always been the result of an unsuccessful route lookup, now it can also > be the result of a successful application of a FR_ACT_UNREACHABLE policy > rule. From a networking point of view these two cases should IMO be > considered equivalent and should therefore trigger the same response. > This will however not be true if NULL (or an error code) is the result > of an unsuccessful route lookup. Both would simply result in a -ENETUNREACHABLE. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
