Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 14:51:05 -0700 From: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> To: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet in_rmx.c ip_input.c ip_var.h Message-ID: <20020812145105.B148@iguana.icir.org> In-Reply-To: <20020812123953.GB41233@sunbay.com>; from ru@FreeBSD.ORG on Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 03:39:53PM %2B0300 References: <200208091449.g79EnNRh005472@freefall.freebsd.org> <20020809080953.B62786@iguana.icir.org> <20020811105249.GB11677@sunbay.com> <20020811054337.B84502@iguana.icir.org> <20020812123953.GB41233@sunbay.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 03:39:53PM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: ... > Hmm, I think ipflow is subject to the same problem. If you had > the 10/8 route, and forwarded some packets to 10.0.0.1, ipflow > caches this (network) route. If you then add the host route to > 10.0.0.1, nothing in the ipflow code (at least I don't see it) > updates the ipflow's idea of the "best match route", and ipflow > continues to use the old 10/8 route. Am I mistaken? so, I have a question here... i believe TCP sockets cache a host route to the destination (say 10.0.0.1 in your example), possibly cloning one from a more generic one (e.g. 10/8). Now how does the invalidation works if someone adds say a different 10.0.0/24 route ? The 10/8 is still alive... cheers luigi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020812145105.B148>