On 12/8/15, 7:41 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: David Ahern <d...@cumulusnetworks.com>
> Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 20:21:51 -0700
>
>> On 12/8/15 8:08 PM, David Ahern wrote:
>>> root@kenny-jessie2:~# ip ru add oif vrf-red lookup vrf-red
>>>
>>> root@kenny-jessie2:~# ip ru ls
>>> 0: from all lookup local
>>> 32759: from all oif vrf-red lookup vrf-red
>>> 32760: from all iif vrf-green lookup vrf-green
>>> 32761: from all oif vrf-green lookup vrf-green
>>> 32762: from all iif vrf-blue lookup vrf-blue
>>> 32763: from all oif vrf-blue lookup vrf-blue
>>> 32764: from all iif vrf-red lookup vrf-red
>>> 32765: from all oif vrf-red lookup vrf-red
>>> 32766: from all lookup main
>>> 32767: from all lookup default
>> d'oh. They don't fail in the sense of a user getting an error message
>> but they add duplicate entries. So, if I fix the duplicity (ie., don't
>> add a second one) would the patch be acceptable?
> No, people need to issue all the commands in order for the configuration
> to work in all kernels.
>
agreed. In which case, maybe the rules should not be added by default, but
added only under a special vrf dev creation attribute or flag
(something like IFLA_VRF_AUTOCREATE_RULES ?)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
