From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Ahern Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 13/19] ipv6: Flush all sibling routes upon NETDEV_UNREGISTER Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 10:42:51 -0700 Message-ID: References: <20171231161513.25785-1-idosch@mellanox.com> <20171231161513.25785-14-idosch@mellanox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: davem@davemloft.net, roopa@cumulusnetworks.com, nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com, mlxsw@mellanox.com To: Ido Schimmel , netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from mail-pf0-f196.google.com ([209.85.192.196]:39209 "EHLO mail-pf0-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751176AbeABRmx (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jan 2018 12:42:53 -0500 Received: by mail-pf0-f196.google.com with SMTP id l24so25908719pfj.6 for ; Tue, 02 Jan 2018 09:42:53 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20171231161513.25785-14-idosch@mellanox.com> Content-Language: en-US Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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. 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.