From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2 2/2] ip: remove NLM_F_EXCL in case of ECMPv6
 routes
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 18:20:49 +0200
Message-ID: <508966E1.2050205@6wind.com>
References: <20121023.023910.80461258323920266.davem@davemloft.net> <1350996176-4000-1-git-send-email-nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com> <1350996176-4000-2-git-send-email-nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com> <20121025090628.25e484d1@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net>
Reply-To: nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1;
	format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, joe@perches.com, bernat@luffy.cx,
	eric.dumazet@gmail.com, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org,
	davem@davemloft.net
To: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@vyatta.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-ee0-f46.google.com ([74.125.83.46]:35831 "EHLO
	mail-ee0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1755323Ab2JYQUy (ORCPT
	<rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Thu, 25 Oct 2012 12:20:54 -0400
Received: by mail-ee0-f46.google.com with SMTP id b15so693695eek.19
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 09:20:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20121025090628.25e484d1@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

Le 25/10/2012 18:06, Stephen Hemminger a =E9crit :
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 14:42:56 +0200
> Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com> wrote:
>
>> ECMPv6 routes are added each one after the other by the kernel, so w=
e should
>> avoid to set the flag NLM_F_EXCL.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com>
>> ---
>>   ip/iproute.c | 5 ++++-
>>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/ip/iproute.c b/ip/iproute.c
>> index c60156f..799a70e 100644
>> --- a/ip/iproute.c
>> +++ b/ip/iproute.c
>> @@ -694,8 +694,11 @@ int parse_nexthops(struct nlmsghdr *n, struct r=
tmsg *r, int argc, char **argv)
>>   		rtnh =3D RTNH_NEXT(rtnh);
>>   	}
>>
>> -	if (rta->rta_len > RTA_LENGTH(0))
>> +	if (rta->rta_len > RTA_LENGTH(0)) {
>>   		addattr_l(n, 1024, RTA_MULTIPATH, RTA_DATA(rta), RTA_PAYLOAD(rta=
));
>> +		if (r->rtm_family =3D=3D AF_INET6)
>> +			n->nlmsg_flags &=3D ~NLM_F_EXCL;
>> +	}
>>   	return 0;
>>   }
>>
>
> Shouldn't this be true for multipath IPv4 as well?
>
In IPv4, the message is treating in one shot, because all nexthops are =
added in=20
the route. In IPv6, each nexthop is added like a single route and then =
they are=20
linked together.