From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from chi.subsignal.org (cxd-2-pt.tunnel.tserv11.ams1.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f14:ed::2]) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D657C21F1C5 for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 03:51:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [100.67.73.73] (tmo-110-137.customers.d1-online.com [80.187.110.137]) by chi.subsignal.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6769E12610E; Wed, 8 May 2013 12:52:35 +0200 (CEST) User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: References: <87vc6vgghx.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <8F7177E4-6212-4A74-8A7C-A2D1703A59BF@iki.fi> <87sj1zgfot.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <518A1F51.809@openwrt.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [homenet] Source-specific routes in Linux [was: atomic updates...] From: Steven Barth Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 12:51:07 +0200 To: Ole Troan Message-ID: <3c2ea3e2-a587-4cf6-820b-929e6d75a9ad@email.android.com> X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 09 May 2013 02:16:43 -0700 Cc: bloat-devel , Juliusz Chroboczek , Markus Stenberg , boutier@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr, homenet@ietf.org X-BeenThere: bloat-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers working on AQM, device drivers, and networking stacks" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 10:51:13 -0000 Ole Troan wrote: >[...] > >> We have switched to RA-Handling in userspace for similar reasons >already so I guess it's only the next logical step to create separate >routing tables for each upstream interface to do source-based routing >and filter out ULA-traffic on this layer instead of through iptables. > >don't do it per upstream interface, that wouldn't work. per next-hop >might. the draft suggests a single table with source constrained >routers and backtracking. > Ah yes thanks for the hint. Please correct me if I got this wrong: I guess per interface would be problematic if there are multiple routers on the upstream link offering different prefixes. However in case of prefix delegation via DHCPV6-pd like on usual home ISP connections would it not be problematic to attribute the prefix to any specific router? - if there would be multiple routers which I guess is unlikely in that situation. One could maybe attribute the prefix to the source address of the DHCPv6 server but that sounds problematic to me aswell. Hmm did I miss something or am I completely on the wrong track now? Thanks, Steven