On 1/21/19 12:32 AM, Ido Schimmel wrote: > 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? >
iproute2 (master should have the problem too) should not send the flag for IPv6. Stephen should apply Jakub's patch and I can merge branches.
