| Message ID | 1383322286-21464-1-git-send-email-florent.fourcot@enst-bretagne.fr |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested, archived |
| Delegated to: | David Miller |
| Headers | show |
On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 05:11:26PM +0100, Florent Fourcot wrote: > In case of label sharing, it should be possible to use > one label to more than one destination. This > old restriction is not mandatory, so we can remove it. Why? Maybe I am not the only one up to date with recent advances in flow label management but I guess others want to know why, too? Please reflect this in your changelog. Greetings, Hannes -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Why? > > Maybe I am not the only one up to date with recent advances in flow label > management but I guess others want to know why, too? > Actually, the good question is "why this restriction before". It probably comes from the RFC 1809, an informational one: RFC 1809 says: > > The specification further requires that all datagrams with the same > (non-zero) Flow Label must have the same Destination Address, Hop- > by-Hop Options header, Routing Header and Source Address contents. In standard track RFCs (3697 / 6437), there are no restriction to set a flow label to only one destination. In the same way, the condition on IPv6 option is obsolete. > Please reflect this in your changelog. > I will send a V2. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/net/ipv6/ip6_flowlabel.c b/net/ipv6/ip6_flowlabel.c index 46e8843..f8102d0 100644 --- a/net/ipv6/ip6_flowlabel.c +++ b/net/ipv6/ip6_flowlabel.c @@ -604,8 +604,7 @@ recheck: goto release; err = -EINVAL; - if (!ipv6_addr_equal(&fl1->dst, &fl->dst) || - ipv6_opt_cmp(fl1->opt, fl->opt)) + if (ipv6_opt_cmp(fl1->opt, fl->opt)) goto release; err = -ENOMEM;
In case of label sharing, it should be possible to use one label to more than one destination. This old restriction is not mandatory, so we can remove it. Signed-off-by: Florent Fourcot <florent.fourcot@enst-bretagne.fr> --- net/ipv6/ip6_flowlabel.c | 3 +-- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) -- 1.8.4.rc3 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html