From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Dichtel Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/2] net: ipv6: Improve user experience with multipath routes Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 17:29:01 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20170124.110616.2098461870069191491.davem@davemloft.net> <4024f547-7f26-ab52-df9d-a0509048c7ff@6wind.com> <20170126.130054.2221154789287701062.davem@davemloft.net> 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 Miller , dsa@cumulusnetworks.com Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f41.google.com ([74.125.82.41]:37421 "EHLO mail-wm0-f41.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755207AbdA0Q3F (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jan 2017 11:29:05 -0500 Received: by mail-wm0-f41.google.com with SMTP id c206so146749697wme.0 for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 08:29:05 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20170126.130054.2221154789287701062.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Le 26/01/2017 à 19:00, David Miller a écrit : > From: David Ahern [snip] >> Quagga does not properly handle IPv6 multipath routes received from >> the kernel. I checked this with debian/jessie version and our >> version, and Donald reviewed the source. It is broken. > > If this is true, quagga is asbolutely not an argument for this "breaking" > something. It doesn't break anything. Ok, my tests also shows that quagga is buggy. Let's change the way to advertise these routes. It would be great to also use RTA_MULTIPATH when a route is deleted (like in your patch 1/2). Note that there is still a difference between ipv4 and ipv6: in ipv4 when a nexthop is added/updated/removed, the whole route must be deleted and added again. In IPv6, nexthop can be managed one by one. It means that in ipv4, the full route is always dumped, which is not the case in ipv6.