From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ido Schimmel Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipv6: Allow non-gateway ECMP for IPv6 Date: Tue, 1 May 2018 16:20:48 +0300 Message-ID: <20180501132048.GA15048@splinter.mtl.com> References: <20180430211529.8295-1-Thomas.Winter@alliedtelesis.co.nz> <89497565-f1e6-a916-70d3-dfc7efa7a7e4@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Thomas Winter , netdev@vger.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" , Alexey Kuznetsov , Hideaki YOSHIFUJI To: David Ahern Return-path: Received: from mail-ve1eur01on0047.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([104.47.1.47]:12573 "EHLO EUR01-VE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751090AbeEANU6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 May 2018 09:20:58 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <89497565-f1e6-a916-70d3-dfc7efa7a7e4@gmail.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 08:59:10PM -0600, David Ahern wrote: > On 4/30/18 3:15 PM, Thomas Winter wrote: > > It is valid to have static routes where the nexthop > > is an interface not an address such as tunnels. > > For IPv4 it was possible to use ECMP on these routes > > but not for IPv6. > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Winter > > Cc: David Ahern > > Cc: "David S. Miller" > > Cc: Alexey Kuznetsov > > Cc: Hideaki YOSHIFUJI > > --- > > include/net/ip6_route.h | 3 +-- > > net/ipv6/ip6_fib.c | 3 --- > > 2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > Interesting. Existing code inserts the dev nexthop as a separate route. > > Change looks good to me. > > Acked-by: David Ahern Thanks for the Cc, David. I'll need to adjust mlxsw to support this. Specifically, mlxsw_sp_fib6_rt_can_mp(). BTW, I hit this bug while looking into this: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/907050/