lwip-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[lwip-devel] [patch #8680] Add support for LwIP static route table


From: David van Moolenbroek
Subject: [lwip-devel] [patch #8680] Add support for LwIP static route table
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 12:40:18 +0000 (UTC)
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:50.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/50.0

Follow-up Comment #2, patch #8680 (project lwip):

I for one think it would make more sense to provide the hooks and facilities
to implement the actual routing outside of the lwIP core. Most importantly,
that would match the current model for IPv4 as well. In addition, it would
allow for a different implementation of the routing table.

Case in point: I am currently working on my own routing implementation, with
the expectation (beyond my control) of a whole lot more routing entries, and
therefore with radix tree backing. As such, I did notice that there is no
ETHIP_GET_GW hook to match the ETHARP_GET_GW hook for IPv4, and that was
actually next on my list. However, this patch adds that hook only when the
patch's static routing is also enabled, which would clash with my own
implementation.

So, I for one would rather see only the ETHIP6_GET_GW hook and ND6 helper
functions merged, while leaving out the actual static routing table code and
netif changes. I believe that the author of this patch would then be able to
maintain the latter on top of lwIP without any problems, hopefully making
everyone happy.. :)

If a consensus can be reached here, I'd be more than willing to provide an
alternative patch.

If merging of this patch is still considered, I have to point out that that
there are several issues with the netif changes in this patch: incorrect error
handling upon address addition (marking the new address as TENTATIVE even on
failure), and issues with removal of routes that do not exist (for example for
the link-local address in slot #0). However, the netif !isvalid -> isinvalid
change should be merged in any case, and really should have been a separate
patch..

    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <http://savannah.nongnu.org/patch/?8680>

_______________________________________________
  Message sent via/by Savannah
  http://savannah.nongnu.org/




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]