From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/4] ipv6: Calculate hash thresholds for IPv6
 nexthops
Date: Wed, 2 May 2018 12:58:56 -0600
Message-ID: <017f58ee-8655-60d1-19aa-a6276c639065@gmail.com>
References: <20180109144028.30133-1-idosch@mellanox.com>
 <20180109144028.30133-2-idosch@mellanox.com>
 <5550c628-5014-427b-60c9-71cf80462723@gmail.com>
 <e4c89c14-99fc-5ba5-667b-0220520f47f3@gmail.com>
 <20180502172106.GA12986@splinter> <20180502175244.GA14587@splinter>
 <20180502185310.GA31998@splinter>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Ido Schimmel <idosch@mellanox.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        roopa@cumulusnetworks.com, nikolay@cumulusnetworks.com,
        pch@ordbogen.com, jkbs@redhat.com, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org,
        mlxsw@mellanox.com
To: Ido Schimmel <idosch@idosch.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>,
        Thomas.Winter@alliedtelesis.co.nz, davem@davemloft.net
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-pf0-f175.google.com ([209.85.192.175]:44034 "EHLO
        mail-pf0-f175.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1750939AbeEBS7A (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Wed, 2 May 2018 14:59:00 -0400
Received: by mail-pf0-f175.google.com with SMTP id q22so12559596pff.11
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Wed, 02 May 2018 11:58:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20180502185310.GA31998@splinter>
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On 5/2/18 12:53 PM, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> 
> So this fixes the issue for me. To reproduce:
> 
> # ip -6 address add 2001:db8::1/64 dev dummy0
> # ip -6 address add 2001:db8::1/64 dev dummy1
> 
> This reproduces the issue because due to above commit both local routes
> are considered siblings... :/
> 
> local 2001:db8::1 proto kernel metric 0 
>         nexthop dev dummy0 weight 1 
>         nexthop dev dummy1 weight 1 pref medium
> 
> I think it's best to revert the patch and have Thomas submit a fixed
> version to net-next. I was actually surprised to see it applied to net.

ugly side effect of the way ecmp routes are managed in IPv6. I think
revert is the best option for now.

I need to look into a bug report related to v6 and route replace with
ecmp. I'll take a look at why the above is consolidated as well. Those
should not become an ecmp route.