Then it means that the following code snippet in icmp6_router_solicitation:
--
adj_index0 = radv_info->mcast_adj_index;
if (adj_index0 == 0)
error0 = ICMP6_ERROR_DST_LOOKUP_MISS;
--
should be changed like this?:
--
adj_index0 = radv_info->mcast_adj_index;
if (adj_index0 == ADJ_INDEX_INVALID)
error0 = ICMP6_ERROR_DST_LOOKUP_MISS;
--
Thanks,
-nagp
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 2:39 PM, Neale Ranns (nranns) <nra...@cisco.com>
wrote:
> Hi nagp,
>
>
>
> In the latest VPP code adjacency index 0 is valid. In older code this was
> not the case.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> neale
>
>
>
> *From: *<vpp-dev-boun...@lists.fd.io> on behalf of Nagaprabhanjan Bellaru
> <nagp.li...@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Friday, 26 May 2017 at 08:43
> *To: *vpp-dev <vpp-dev@lists.fd.io>
> *Subject: *[vpp-dev] Is adj_index "0" not valid?
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> In the latest VPP code, in icmp6_router_solicitation - the code checks for
> radv->mcast_adj_index and if it is "0" - it flags an error
> ICMP6_DST_LOOKUP_MISS.
>
> However, in ip6_neighbor_sw_interface_add_del - when the radv_info_t
> structure is getting initialized - when mcast_adj_index is allocated using
> adj_mcast_add_or_lock - it is returning adjacency index as zero.
>
> That left me puzzling whether adjacency index 0 is not valid (I guess it
> is ok to have adj index as zero).
>
> Please correct me if I am wrong.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -nagp
>
>
_______________________________________________
vpp-dev mailing list
vpp-dev@lists.fd.io
https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev
