On 08/22/17 at 05:24pm, Dave Young wrote:
On 08/22/17 at 04:44am, Pingfan Liu wrote:
> > There are several ip route callback, should we fix all of them? Do we
> > have a simple way to do it?
> >
> I am not sure, but most likely we can not simplify it. "ip route" is based
on routing table.
> While "ip neigh" is based on neighbor's discovery protocol(L2
protocol), which means the peer should be on the switch.
> As for link-local addr, there is no subnet fields, I can not figure out how it is go
through routing table.
> Versa vice, the problem based on routing-table can not be resolved by L2 info.
Since link local is only local addresses, do we really need these ip
route callback? Maybe we can skip them?
As discussed on irc, skip ip route getting.
For the static route issue, is it a problem for link local?
No need to consider static route either.