Re: [net-next,v2,4/5] seg6: add support for the SRv6 End.DT4 behavior

[Jakub Kicinski]

On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 10:04:44 -0700 David Ahern wrote:
> On 11/13/20 10:02 AM, Stefano Salsano wrote:
> > Il 2020-11-13 17:55, Jakub Kicinski ha scritto:  
> >> On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 18:49:17 -0700 David Ahern wrote:  
> >>> On 11/12/20 6:28 PM, Andrea Mayer wrote:  
> >>>> The implementation of SRv6 End.DT4 differs from the the
> >>>> implementation of SRv6
> >>>> End.DT6 due to the different *route input* lookup functions. For
> >>>> IPv6 is it
> >>>> possible to force the routing lookup specifying a routing table
> >>>> through the
> >>>> ip6_pol_route() function (as it is done in the
> >>>> seg6_lookup_any_nexthop()).  
> >>>
> >>> It is unfortunate that the IPv6 variant got in without the VRF piece.  
> >>
> >> Should we make it a requirement for this series to also extend the v6
> >> version to support the preferred VRF-based operation? Given VRF is
> >> better and we require v4 features to be implemented for v6?  
> > 
> > I think it is better to separate the two aspects... adding a missing
> > feature in IPv4 datapath should not depend on improving the quality of
> > the implementation of the IPv6 datapath :-)
> > 
> > I think that Andrea is willing to work on improving the IPv6
> > implementation, but this should be considered after this patchset...
>
> agreed. The v6 variant has existed for a while. The v4 version is
> independent.

Okay, I'm not sure what's the right call so I asked DaveM.

TBH I wasn't expecting this reaction, we're talking about a 200 LoC
patch which would probably be 90% reused for v6...