On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 09:29:51AM -0700, David Ahern wrote: > On 1/14/19 9:05 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 12:54:06 -0800 > > Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicin...@netronome.com> wrote: > > > >> Kernel ignores the RTM_F_LOOKUP_TABLE flag for all families > >> but IPv4. Don't set it, otherwise it may fall foul of > >> strict checking policies. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicin...@netronome.com> > > > > Doing the right thing is a good idea, but really I can't see > > the point of doing this. The kernel will always have to accept > > requests from older versions of iproute2 (it can never be stricter) > > because of ABI compatibility. So unless you can make a stronger > > case for this; no not applying it. > > > > iproute2 is often used as a reference model for features. Making > iproute2 correct is the right thing to do regardless of whether what the > kernel accepts. > > Current master branch is the first iproute2 to use the strict checking, > and its first release with strict checking should have as many of these > little one offs as possible fixed.
With current iproute2-next and net-next I get: $ ip -6 route get 2001:db8:1::2 Error: ipv6: Invalid flags for get route request. Are we going to patch the kernel to accept a flag it is not using or are we going to patch iproute2 to not send it?
