From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ido Schimmel Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 13/19] ipv6: Flush all sibling routes upon NETDEV_UNREGISTER Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 09:50:57 +0200 Message-ID: <20180103075057.GC761@splinter> References: <20171231161513.25785-1-idosch@mellanox.com> <20171231161513.25785-14-idosch@mellanox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Ido Schimmel , netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, roopa@cumulusnetworks.com, nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com, mlxsw@mellanox.com To: David Ahern Return-path: Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]:40177 "EHLO out2-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751144AbeACHvB (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Jan 2018 02:51:01 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 10:42:51AM -0700, David Ahern wrote: > On 12/31/17 9:15 AM, Ido Schimmel wrote: > > IPv4 and IPv6 react differently to a netdev being unregistered. In IPv4, > > in case the netdev is used as a nexthop device in a multipath route, the > > entire route is flushed. > > > > However, IPv6 only removes the nexthops associated with the unregistered > > netdev. > > > > Align IPv4 and IPv6 and flush all the sibling routes when a nexthop > > device is unregistered. > > > > Signed-off-by: Ido Schimmel > > --- > > net/ipv6/route.c | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- > > 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > not so sure about this one. Yea, I wasn't sure about it either. I'll drop it and fix the tests accordingly. > When we get to nexthops as separate objects, we can bring in consistency > by allowing ipv4 routes to just drop a single nexthop in the route > versus the behavior today. Agreed.