Re: [PATCH net-next v3 0/4] net: ipv6: Improve user experience with multipath routes

[Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 10:45:57 -0800
Roopa Prabhu <roopa@cumulusnetworks.com> wrote:

> On 1/30/17, 8:12 AM, David Ahern wrote:
> > On 1/30/17 8:49 AM, Roopa Prabhu wrote:  
> >>> Single next hop delete will be around because IPv6 allows it -- and because IPv4 needs to support it.
> >>>  
> >> understand single next hop delete for ipv6 will be around..and my only point was to leave it around but not optimize for that case.
> >> I don't think we should support single nexthop delete in ipv4 (I have not seen a requirement for that)... ipv4 is good as it is right now.
> >> the additional complexity is not needed.
> >>  
> > IPv4 has a known bug -- delete a virtual interface in a multihop route and the entire route is deleted, including the nexthops for other devices. This does not happen for IPv6.
> >
> > Simple example of that bug:
> >
> > ip li add dummy1 type dummy
> > ip li add dummy2 type dummy
> > ip addr add dev dummy1 10.11.1.1/28
> > ip li set dummy1 up
> > ip addr add dev dummy2 10.11.2.1/28
> > ip li set dummy2 up
> > ip ro add 1.1.1.0/24 nexthop via 10.11.1.2 nexthop via 10.11.2.2
> > ip li del dummy2
> >  
> > --> the entire multipath route has been deleted.  
> >
> >
> > And, fixing this bug enables work to make IPv4 append to be sane -- appending a route should modify an existing route by adding the nexthop, not adding a new route that I believe can never actually be hit.
> >
> > Both cases mean modifying an IPv4 route -- adding or removing nexthops -- a capability that IPv6 allows so fixing this means closing another difference between the stacks.  
> 
> good point on the bug you point out. agree the bug needs to be fixed ...but routing daemons react to this behavior pretty well...because they get a link notification and a route notification. I was ok with fixing ipv6 to be similar to ipv4...but I am not in favor of bringing in design choices that ipv6 made into ipv4 :).
> In all cases, in my experience with routes, the update of ecmp route as a whole has always been ok (at-least not until now...maybe in the future
> for new usecases)
> 
> In the case of the bug you point out, can the user be notified of the implicit update of the route in the kernel ...via replace flag or something ?.
> regarding append..., ipv4 never really supported appending to an existing route......even in the case of a non-ecmp routes.
> append just dictates the order where the route is added IIRC  (i maybe mistaken here..its been long i tried it).

My fear is that routing daemons already adapt to the funny semantics of multi-path routing in IPv4 vs IPv6
and therefore any change in semantics or flags risks breaking existing user space.