Yes, I think we should.
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 11:38:17AM -0700, Alex Wang wrote: > Okay, just tried on my 12.04, RTNLGRP_LINK does not notify when the ipv4 > address changes... so, we should join the corresponding mc groups right? > > Thanks, > Alex Wang, > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Alex Wang <al...@nicira.com> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 09:59:04AM -0700, Alex Wang wrote: > >> > I think we should not do the same for get_in4(). If interface is not > >> > assigned > >> > with ipv4 address, ioctl function will return errno 99. Then user could > >> > later > >> > assign a valid ip. But caching error number makes ovs never check > >> again. > >> > (unless react to RTNLGRP_LINK notification and mark it as invalid) > >> > > >> > This also makes me wondering, if the same thing could happen to > >> get_in6()? > >> > How do we cope with ipv6 address change? > >> > >> I assumed we would get a notification when the status changes, which > >> would allow us to mark it as invalid. If we don't get the right kind of > >> notification to invalidate our IPv4/v6 address caches, then we either > >> shouldn't cache them at all or subscribe to the right kind of > >> notification. > >> > > > > After checking the code, I think we may be fine, > > > > I remembered I asked this offline before: > > > > We already have the NETLINK_ROUTE nl_sock joining multicast group > > RTNLGRP_LINK and resetting the cache flags correctly when there is an > > event. However, I could not find any documentation at all regarding the > > multicast groups... If RTNLGRP_LINK reports both ipv4/6 address change, > > then we are fine. If not, we need to also join the proper multicast groups > > (e.g. RTNLGRP_IPV6_IFADDR, RTNLGRP_IPV4_IFADDR) > > > > Do you know more about this? > > > > Thanks, > > Alex Wang, > > _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
