Hello. In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Thu, 27 Jul 2006 00:00:02 +0200), Thomas Graf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> Adds the framework to support multiple IPv6 routing tables. Well, one design consideration that I have had for several months is performance impact. Previously, we directly use address, ifindex etc., not flowi, in IPv6 routing code except for ip6_route_output(). This patch changes them to use flowi. I know this should work and it is a good way for abstraction. However, initializing flowi for IPv6 is more expensive than one for IPv4, and it would result in poor performance (especially without CONFIG_IPV6_MULTIPLE_TABLES). Am I too cautious? Should we eat this? --yoshfuji - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
