From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Dichtel Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 0/4] net: ipv6: Improve user experience with multipath routes Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 18:03:38 +0100 Message-ID: References: <1485559258-4856-1-git-send-email-dsa@cumulusnetworks.com> <588D3EB9.1070107@cumulusnetworks.com> <592be6dc-df0e-6185-ba6f-5acf5d042ae5@cumulusnetworks.com> <8f5334f0-20a3-0eb2-6baa-1fe8331ad2db@6wind.com> <0e9b2b4e-fc48-e21d-7b1f-3df45992e5e3@cumulusnetworks.com> Reply-To: nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Ahern , Roopa Prabhu Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f50.google.com ([74.125.82.50]:35463 "EHLO mail-wm0-f50.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751429AbdA3RDm (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jan 2017 12:03:42 -0500 Received: by mail-wm0-f50.google.com with SMTP id b65so41054213wmf.0 for ; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 09:03:41 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <0e9b2b4e-fc48-e21d-7b1f-3df45992e5e3@cumulusnetworks.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Le 30/01/2017 à 16:23, David Ahern a écrit : > On 1/30/17 4:07 AM, Nicolas Dichtel wrote: >> Le 29/01/2017 à 19:02, David Ahern a écrit : >> [snip] >>> Data centers are moving to L3, and multipath is a big part of that. Anyone who looks at ip -6 route enough knows it gets painful mentally pulling the individual routes into a single one. >> I agree, but it's only an iproute2 problem. iproute2 could group routes to have >> a better output, there is no need to have a kernel patch for this ;-) >> > > iproute2 is not the only rtnetlink user. The comment above uses ip show as an example. libnl has a workaround for IPv6 to update route objects versus replacing them - unnecessary complexity that does not need to replicated to iproute2, Quagga/FRR or python libraries implementing rtnetlink. Really, RTA_MULTIPATH support in notifications should have been added when multipath support was added to the IPv6. Patch 3 is mostly a refactoring of rt6_fill_node to fill in nexthop information. This could have been done 4+ years ago when RTA_MULTIPATH route adds was added to the stack. > Like I said, I fully agree that RTA_MULTIPATH is better for the dump. For the notifications, I'm not convinced. I did not this 4 years ago on purpose ;-) I don't think that ipv4 is the right reference because the implementation is really different. ipv6 is more flexible and this implies differences in the notifications.