From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-wr1-f53.google.com (mail-wr1-f53.google.com [209.85.221.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3680D283FE2 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2025 16:41:17 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.221.53 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1763484079; cv=none; b=VHFFxbvLau5MTXGlB6YAOAaxjotzW5XkLj/T4dME1EHj7iCD0gvobbx97ko+iBgJd7SZuek4iZLF3P/IidlDlSjDJ9RIkPRirq4IkUQ5pkATX9FtD9Arqsu79CBPfyHeSXSiXT71P5v2weyqlUiz7vlGMFPamQK/OLz9KyHGHGg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1763484079; c=relaxed/simple; bh=5+HBPVFt80Bkwmphf73wMBibz+F2YYcuMzAfNsY8sww=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=YyK9ly4empg7Rzz2dMSOny0twBcx98GiDURyllGtEozwkj/ITdx0LBgli6HNPnZFDZAk9FZLwj3utAB4e+fwfjjhblbQpzi7jEf0ydY6y+iL8fevixy3C9dmyuKsL/+9MQdG/fUYrMMiLe/CizQuNw/mqVHrHpaBHdTIRNQNs3g= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=6wind.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=6wind.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=6wind.com header.i=@6wind.com header.b=BqiA1ABp; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.221.53 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=6wind.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=6wind.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=6wind.com header.i=@6wind.com header.b="BqiA1ABp" Received: by mail-wr1-f53.google.com with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-429c844066fso542993f8f.3 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2025 08:41:16 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind.com; s=google; t=1763484075; x=1764088875; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:organization:content-language :from:references:cc:to:subject:reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:date :message-id:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=CTJRAiTO1WZXqYNvixxfjEj3jVIt9TraZbDwZNPArzI=; b=BqiA1ABpQAIUF3L2GXuMkrPOrx5YS+b3HmfnSoi3FDRXmQXqAxQg7oS9GG1syv3IVM SUv5h9M7x5pF6Z7rjTMuNJ44sbKEm3HEzgI9BWTWcZvtcuQi4RSHBuF0wxvhynwYI4pD FeR0erVM5jFkqJa6FjTIeDJ2HlXFINk3npTWspQGbPMmOstPbTHFLGnhk1ss1NgCf71h J2Y1eSB+rp2/DeiC/HuRACYnMAzm06Y+yVY9XP7DM15SQrneh2LfO1SYeNEz3bF+pxWD Epi1sLDVziV6Zf2OkXzgggY+Mcydgz2ZPoCZZyU1xJQrarmPe1xva5nKW/8Ieweuj97W fZqQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1763484075; x=1764088875; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:organization:content-language :from:references:cc:to:subject:reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:date :message-id:x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=CTJRAiTO1WZXqYNvixxfjEj3jVIt9TraZbDwZNPArzI=; b=OsIDXezZMGkb1nXHITHlhZoqLHg/KMAPMi/yXGXWnXzoePgHuY+KwZ1iexraKswGti DzRuU3t/aKfFtvxfSkBQTbJGZkmVHm87Tkg/C90QsAnrYcGvwe2b4Xk9VU9vqGQ+I4Wy m73FEuBPucH4jUXOZh28F7M3YAUeDgWCxP7Rdr2xaTtY5oapWWNpPu5LJqDjgRiBF67R PYfaQ5OQEZ73QPtOQlrQZA4t73HMPLBwXysxlGBtgr/pB60bbQxVJSw7sri/j8IuVZ6f U5mGFEIoVzEaZi3X/7lDhHD+0OeVEfF1TNQHLf9QCm5tQLK/9LZ1EGGLknNEWNvYVUDC LFlQ== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVoH/SekaIggONHyV7ugFzMnihfm/0Ky5hqgQTgXnzwLDBjtk8ny7VMj93zMPETf/M36LcwdzY=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yyym+DRJaTyfPn/KAgtTwDdn2V2YPSmeU+oG2lIZVZDAxaFt/vh qSSa9ocMlkgBBBJqLYyMnKwkpgwdmo6yDrcn/pIRINrnCkiJ4dhXVXoi8Lyw9I/p+Jg= X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncvkctJ8ucbCJepN/KO2xjddjVes5U1xSX56TTe9JFIU+wJzwVz5FVFqljnhw0R +WfN6e3i1GwllTnyoHYRbg9dxqKBfLBbJMvikF+TxmIDKVn52PE6qEEtpfHytP+rPnIht8n/00l hx0p9rVQf1wfoWDgDuHJ9kpDhj26MUvZPN7skOsFMIaoIuSxWLJTPC23plHEe3d4IXdGbVUQyjM gfzrkF3F1mCH812QUmhXKon3+Cs7oTCGq1/5TvMIs4+8vVFcmiYOSUcQxxIw5xQQjKkQjM089oQ 6rytSfmh0o3lFmDrKGoQVKY7g8oTujci/PC881/rdKzoIyRHSVVHbUDjknoEl/HHQOhANcBCgkE RO3ATf+QWvUuNOJD8DuQ3tk74uQ4N7HilynMfy5F56D59WfdLYQbN4jpuCLbbNyIpPUH4X9W83i hWRfFwxeKzXwjrhDvaLmlUW1SPVfMjjNLMRt3RGB8gPF7+dM7XS5kxJRP/JDZB54c= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IF97JafIlq54OLhTw/p092fe5r1/7KihkvqfT6Tt6ooPb5n9KJCROQf36JWFffjJUMuDkZXnQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:1c16:b0:477:a033:9a35 with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-477a9c50cb1mr20037485e9.4.1763484075475; Tue, 18 Nov 2025 08:41:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPV6:2a01:e0a:b41:c160:6a1d:efff:fe52:1959? ([2a01:e0a:b41:c160:6a1d:efff:fe52:1959]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ffacd0b85a97d-42b53e7b12asm32897630f8f.10.2025.11.18.08.41.14 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 18 Nov 2025 08:41:14 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2025 17:41:14 +0100 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Reply-To: nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/ipv6: allow device-only routes via the multipath API To: David Ahern , azey Cc: "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni , Simon Horman , netdev , linux-kernel References: <7a4ebf5d-1815-44b6-bf77-bc7b32f39984@kernel.org> <19a969f919b.facf84276222.4894043454892645830@azey.net> From: Nicolas Dichtel Content-Language: en-US Organization: 6WIND In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Le 18/11/2025 à 17:04, David Ahern a écrit : > On 11/18/25 4:00 AM, azey wrote: >> On 2025-11-18 10:05:55, +0100 Nicolas Dichtel wrote: >>> If I remember well, it was to avoid merging connected routes to ECMP routes. >>> For example, fe80:: but also if two interfaces have an address in the same >>> prefix. With the current code, the last route will always be used. With this >>> patch, packets will be distributed across the two interfaces, right? >>> If yes, it may cause regression on some setups. >> >> Thanks! Yes, with this patch routes with the same destination and metric automatically >> become multipath. From my testing, for link-locals this shouldn't make a difference >> as the interface must always be specified with % anyway. >> >> For non-LL addresses, this could indeed cause a regression in obscure setups. In my Having an address in the same prefix on two interfaces is not an "obscure setups". >> opinion though, I feel that it is very unlikely anyone who has two routes with the >> same prefix and metric (which AFAIK, isn't really a supported configuration without >> ECMP anyway) relies on this quirk. The most plausible setup relying on this I can >> think of would be a server with two interfaces on the same L2 segment, and a >> firewall somewhere that only allows the source address of one interface through. >> >> IMO, setups like that are more of a misconfiguration than a "practical use case" >> that'd make this a real regression, but I'd completely understand if it'd be enough >> to block this. > > There is really no reason to take a risk of a regression. If someone > wants ecmp with device only nexthops, then use the new nexthop infra to > do it. +1