Re: ECMP ipv6 vs ipv4

[Wilco Baan Hofman <wilco@baanhofman.nl>]

On Mon, 2013-04-15 at 17:51 +0200, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
> Le 15/04/2013 09:58, Wilco Baan Hofman a écrit :
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm working on a patch to implement 'nexthop weight' for multipath ipv6.
> > However, the ECMPv6 implementation has a few flaws that are quite
> > annoying.
> >
> > One of the flaws is that the netlink nexthop API is asymmetrical, you
> > can add nexthops through the netlink API, but when the result is
> > requested it is completely different, resulting in bird6 removing the
> > route as it does not match the initial route set.
> In fact, there is two ways to add ECMP routes:
> $ ip -6 route add 3ffe:304:124:2306::/64 \
> 	nexthop via fe80::230:1bff:feb4:e05c dev eth0 \
> 	nexthop via fe80::230:1bff:feb4:dd4f dev eth0
> or
> $ ip -6 route add 3ffe:304:124:2306::/64 via fe80::230:1bff:feb4:dd4f dev
> eth0
> $ ip -6 route append 3ffe:304:124:2306::/64 via fe80::230:1bff:feb4:e05c dev
> eth0

> Note that the second way matchs what is returned by the kernel (ie one entry per 
> nexthop).

Sure, but how do we add nexthop weights and algorithm selection (hash,
random) to this API? I personally prefer to have the routing behaviour
of ipv4 and ipv6 to be as similar as possible, as the basics are the
same anyway.

> >
> > Another one of the flaws is that if I add nexthop weight or algorithm
> > (weighted hash or weighted random) I need to add this to the main rt
> > node, this seems like an inefficient memory structure, as this needs to
> > be added to all the siblings as well.
> Nexthop weight (rtnh->rtnh_hops) is not implemented.

Yes it is... in my tree, but I want to extend it to also include support
for algorithm for hash based, etc.. and to keep it as close to the
existing APIs as possible I think the nexthop structure makes the most
sense for this.

> >
> > I propose that we have a nexthop structure to an exclusive route,
> > similar what we have for IPv4, where we store the gateway, device and
> > weight for all nexthops and the algorithm in the route. This would make
> > the netlink API symmetrical again and fixes the n*n inefficiencies when
> > adding routes (all siblings need to know about all siblings).
> >
> > What are your thoughts on this?
> >
This stands :)

-- Wilco