From: Vincent Bernat <bernat@luffy.cx>
To: <nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com>
Cc: <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
<davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v2 0/1] Add support of ECMPv6
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 14:36:08 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c6a5aae8c773f78aaa1c59cfb68a3d52@luffy.cx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5053329F.6030109@6wind.com>
Le 14.09.2012 15:35, Nicolas Dichtel a écrit :
>> Therefore, the problem is not in iproute2 which knows how to display
>> those ECMP routes. I fear that this difference make support in
>> routing
>> daemons more difficult.
> Hmm, can you elaborate? Our routing daemon, quagga, manage it without
> any problem.
Hi!
Sorry for the late answer. I have been experimenting with your patch
and it seems that Quagga does not handle such routes. Do you have some
patchset on top of Quagga? I am looking at
28971c8cb1138700e87dc7da673e59b5596bb51b (which is fairly recent) and in
zebra/rt_netlink.c, IPv6 routes are handled as IPv4 routes: multiple
hops are added as attributes.
In Quagga, I do:
ipv6 route 2001:db8:97::/64 2001:db8:1::2
ipv6 route 2001:db8:97::/64 2001:db8:2::2
And I get:
r1(VTY)# show ipv6 route
Codes: K - kernel route, C - connected, S - static, R - RIPng,
O - OSPFv6, I - IS-IS, B - BGP, A - Babel,
> - selected route, * - FIB route
C>* ::1/128 is directly connected, lo
O 2001:db8:1::/64 [110/1] is directly connected, eth0, 01:52:42
C>* 2001:db8:1::/64 is directly connected, eth0
O 2001:db8:2::/64 [110/1] is directly connected, eth1, 01:52:37
C>* 2001:db8:2::/64 is directly connected, eth1
S> 2001:db8:97::/64 [1/0] via 2001:db8:1::2, eth0
via 2001:db8:2::2, eth1
K>* 2001:db8:98::/64 via 2001:db8:2::2, eth1
C>* 2001:db8:99::/64 is directly connected, dummy0
C * fe80::/64 is directly connected, eth1
C * fe80::/64 is directly connected, eth0
C>* fe80::/64 is directly connected, dummy0
The route is not installed in the kernel (not "*"):
2012/10/15 14:22:01 ZEBRA: rib_process: 2001:db8:97::/64: Updating
existing route, select 0x7fee39f0ad10, fib 0x7fee39f0ad10
2012/10/15 14:22:01 ZEBRA: netlink_route_multipath() (multihop):
RTM_DELROUTE 2001:db8:97::/64, type IPv6 nexthop
2012/10/15 14:22:01 ZEBRA: netlink_route_multipath() (multihop):
nexthop via 2001:db8:1::2 if 4
2012/10/15 14:22:01 ZEBRA: netlink_talk: netlink-cmd type
RTM_DELROUTE(25), seq=27
2012/10/15 14:22:01 ZEBRA: netlink_route_multipath() (multihop):
RTM_NEWROUTE 2001:db8:97::/64, type IPv6 nexthop
2012/10/15 14:22:01 ZEBRA: netlink_route_multipath() (multihop):
nexthop via 2001:db8:1::2 if 4
2012/10/15 14:22:01 ZEBRA: netlink_route_multipath() (multihop):
RTM_NEWROUTE 2001:db8:97::/64, type IPv6 nexthop
2012/10/15 14:22:01 ZEBRA: netlink_route_multipath() (multihop):
nexthop via 2001:db8:2::2 if 5
2012/10/15 14:22:01 ZEBRA: netlink_talk: netlink-cmd type
RTM_NEWROUTE(24), seq=28
2012/10/15 14:22:01 ZEBRA: netlink-cmd error: No such process,
type=RTM_NEWROUTE(24), seq=28, pid=0
The problem is the same with BIRD. The difference with IPv4 makes it
difficult to factor the code between IPv4 and IPv6. What do you think?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-10-15 12:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-09-06 17:30 IPv6 multipath routes Vincent Bernat
2012-09-06 17:30 ` [PATCH] Fix "ip -6 route add ... nexthop" Vincent Bernat
2012-09-06 17:53 ` Vincent Bernat
2012-09-12 8:29 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 0/1] Add support of ECMPv6 Nicolas Dichtel
2012-09-12 8:29 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 1/1] ipv6: add support of ECMP Nicolas Dichtel
2012-09-12 8:48 ` YOSHIFUJI Hideaki
2012-09-12 9:42 ` YOSHIFUJI Hideaki
2012-09-12 9:53 ` Nicolas Dichtel
2012-09-14 7:59 ` [RFC PATCH net-next v2 0/1] Add support of ECMPv6 Nicolas Dichtel
2012-09-14 7:59 ` [RFC PATCH net-next v2 1/1] ipv6: add support of ECMP Nicolas Dichtel
2012-09-14 9:40 ` [RFC PATCH net-next v2 0/1] Add support of ECMPv6 Vincent Bernat
2012-09-14 13:35 ` Nicolas Dichtel
2012-09-14 13:37 ` Nicolas Dichtel
2012-10-15 12:36 ` Vincent Bernat [this message]
2012-10-15 19:54 ` Vincent Bernat
2012-09-19 9:18 ` [PATCH net-next v3 " Nicolas Dichtel
2012-09-19 9:18 ` [PATCH net-next v3 1/1] ipv6: add support of ECMP Nicolas Dichtel
2012-09-20 21:15 ` David Miller
2012-09-21 9:59 ` [PATCH net-next v4 0/1] Add support of ECMPv6 Nicolas Dichtel
2012-09-21 9:59 ` [PATCH net-next v4 1/1] ipv6: add support of ECMP Nicolas Dichtel
2012-09-21 17:48 ` [PATCH net-next v4 0/1] Add support of ECMPv6 David Miller
2012-09-24 12:28 ` Nicolas Dichtel
2012-10-01 13:56 ` [PATCH net-next v5 " Nicolas Dichtel
2012-10-01 13:56 ` [PATCH net-next v5 1/1] ipv6: add support of ECMP Nicolas Dichtel
2012-10-01 16:47 ` Joe Perches
2012-10-02 16:02 ` [PATCH net-next v6 0/1] Add support of ECMPv6 Nicolas Dichtel
2012-10-02 16:02 ` [PATCH net-next v6 1/1] ipv6: add support of equal cost multipath (ECMP) Nicolas Dichtel
2012-10-02 16:06 ` Nicolas Dichtel
2012-10-02 16:14 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-10-19 9:13 ` [PATCH net-next v7 0/1] Add support of ECMPv6 nicolas.dichtel
2012-10-19 9:13 ` [PATCH net-next v7 1/1] ipv6: add support of equal cost multipath (ECMP) nicolas.dichtel
2012-10-22 0:41 ` David Miller
2012-10-22 13:42 ` [PATCH net-next v8 0/1] Add support of ECMPv6 nicolas.dichtel
2012-10-22 13:42 ` [PATCH net-next v8 1/1] ipv6: add support of equal cost multipath (ECMP) nicolas.dichtel
2012-10-23 6:39 ` David Miller
2012-10-23 12:42 ` [PATCH iproute2 1/2] ip: fix "ip -6 route add ... nexthop" Nicolas Dichtel
2012-10-23 12:42 ` [PATCH iproute2 2/2] ip: remove NLM_F_EXCL in case of ECMPv6 routes Nicolas Dichtel
2012-10-25 16:06 ` Stephen Hemminger
2012-10-25 16:20 ` Nicolas Dichtel
2012-10-25 16:25 ` Stephen Hemminger
2012-10-25 16:48 ` Nicolas Dichtel
2012-11-02 8:58 ` [RESEND PATCH net-next] ipv6/multipath: remove flag NLM_F_EXCL after the first nexthop Nicolas Dichtel
2012-11-03 1:38 ` David Miller
2012-11-05 8:30 ` Nicolas Dichtel
2012-10-25 16:08 ` [PATCH iproute2 1/2] ip: fix "ip -6 route add ... nexthop" Stephen Hemminger
2012-10-02 18:43 ` [PATCH net-next v6 1/1] ipv6: add support of equal cost multipath (ECMP) David Miller
2012-09-11 12:57 ` IPv6 multipath routes Ulrich Weber
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=c6a5aae8c773f78aaa1c59cfb68a3d52@luffy.cx \
--to=bernat@luffy.cx \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com \
--cc=yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).