On Sun, 25 Sep 2016 09:05:08 -0400 Jamal Hadi Salim <j...@mojatatu.com> wrote: > On 16-09-23 11:40 AM, Shmulik Ladkani wrote: > > > > [off topic] > > I think this is still on topic!
Sorry, wasn't too clear on that. What I meant is that _existing_ "egress redirect" already gets us into crazy loops - the veth misconfig being just one example of, but many more exist (many device stacking constructs, with lower dev issuing an egress-redirect back to the topmost dev). Point is, IMO loop detection (whether/how addressed), is orthogonal to this series implementing "ingress redirect", and doesn't seem as a strict prerequisite to adding the "ingress redirect" functionality to act_mirred. We can later address any loop-detection improvements in mirred. WDYT? Thanks, Shmulik
