On 11/13/20 10:02 AM, Stefano Salsano wrote:
Il 2020-11-13 17:55, Jakub Kicinski ha scritto:
On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 18:49:17 -0700 David Ahern wrote:
On 11/12/20 6:28 PM, Andrea Mayer wrote:
The implementation of SRv6 End.DT4 differs from the the implementation of SRv6 End.DT6 due to the different *route input* lookup functions. For IPv6 is it possible to force the routing lookup specifying a routing table through the ip6_pol_route() function (as it is done in the seg6_lookup_any_nexthop()).
It is unfortunate that the IPv6 variant got in without the VRF piece.
Should we make it a requirement for this series to also extend the v6 version to support the preferred VRF-based operation? Given VRF is better and we require v4 features to be implemented for v6?
I think it is better to separate the two aspects... adding a missing feature in IPv4 datapath should not depend on improving the quality of the implementation of the IPv6 datapath :-)
I think that Andrea is willing to work on improving the IPv6 implementation, but this should be considered after this patchset...
agreed. The v6 variant has existed for a while. The v4 version is independent.