* Michael Tokarev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2006-08-11 10:56
> And while we're at it... How about using table *names* instead of
> numbers in kernel too, a-la iptables? Once possible number of tables
> is large, and we're using hashes for tables now anyway, keeping a
> name inside the table structure w
David Miller wrote:
> From: Michael Tokarev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[]
>>> - Use u32 for routing table IDs everywhere inside the kernel
>> Just out of curiocity: why current limit of 2^31 isn't sufficient?
>> Or am I missing the point?
>
> The current limit is 256 because the table member of the struc
From: Michael Tokarev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 10:39:19 +0400
> Patrick McHardy wrote:
> > These are the updated patches (against net-2.6.19) to increase the number
> > of possible routing tables to 2^32. They basically consist of four parts:
> >
> > - Use u32 for routing table
Patrick McHardy wrote:
> These are the updated patches (against net-2.6.19) to increase the number
> of possible routing tables to 2^32. They basically consist of four parts:
>
> - Use u32 for routing table IDs everywhere inside the kernel
Just out of curiocity: why current limit of 2^31 isn't su
These are the updated patches (against net-2.6.19) to increase the number
of possible routing tables to 2^32. They basically consist of four parts:
- Use u32 for routing table IDs everywhere inside the kernel
- Introduce new netlink attributes to carry extended table IDs and add
compatibility f
