Hi David, On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 12:54 AM, David Miller <da...@davemloft.net> wrote: > From: Shmulik Ladkani <shmu...@nsof.io> > Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 11:59:09 +0300 > >> This leads to inconsistencies, depending on order of operations, e.g.: > > I don't see any inconsistency. When you insert using NLM_F_EXCL the > insertion fails if any existing rule matches or overlaps in any way > with the keys in the new rule. > > Sorry I'm not going to apply this.
The inconsistency we saw is that 0.0.0.0/0 is treated differently compared to all other subnets - for which overlaps are not disallowed - e.g. this succeeds: # ip ru add from 10.0.0.0/8 iif eth2 pref 33 table 33 # ip ru add from 0.0.0.0/1 iif eth2 pref 33 table 33 # ip ru add from 128.0.0.0/1 iif eth2 pref 33 table 33 Though being functionally equivalent to adding from=0.0.0.0/0. So our understanding was that 'different subnet==different rule', similar to the route addition behavior with NLM_F_EXCL. Best regards, Eyal.
