Date:	Wed, 17 Apr 2013 16:14:18 +0200
From:	Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>
To:	Wilco Baan Hofman <wilco@...nhofman.nl>
CC:	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: ECMP ipv6 vs ipv4

Le 17/04/2013 15:16, Wilco Baan Hofman a écrit :
> On Wed, 2013-04-17 at 11:03 +0200, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
>
>>> Sure, but how do we add nexthop weights and algorithm selection (hash,
>>> random) to this API? I personally prefer to have the routing behaviour
>>> of ipv4 and ipv6 to be as similar as possible, as the basics are the
>>> same anyway.
>> You can use something like this:
>>
>> $ ip -6 route add 3ffe:304:124:2306::/64 dev eth0 nexthop via
>> fe80::230:1bff:feb4:dd4f weight 1
>> $ ip -6 route append 3ffe:304:124:2306::/64 dev eth0 nexthop via
>> fe80::230:1bff:feb4:e05c weight 2
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Another one of the flaws is that if I add nexthop weight or algorithm
>>>>> (weighted hash or weighted random) I need to add this to the main rt
>>>>> node, this seems like an inefficient memory structure, as this needs to
>>>>> be added to all the siblings as well.
>>>> Nexthop weight (rtnh->rtnh_hops) is not implemented.
>>>
>>> Yes it is... in my tree, but I want to extend it to also include support
>>> for algorithm for hash based, etc.. and to keep it as close to the
>>> existing APIs as possible I think the nexthop structure makes the most
>>> sense for this.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I propose that we have a nexthop structure to an exclusive route,
>>>>> similar what we have for IPv4, where we store the gateway, device and
>>>>> weight for all nexthops and the algorithm in the route. This would make
>>>>> the netlink API symmetrical again and fixes the n*n inefficiencies when
>>>>> adding routes (all siblings need to know about all siblings).
>>>>>
>>>>> What are your thoughts on this?
>> The pro of the current implementation is that you can add or delete a nexthop
>> withtout removing the whole route. You don't need to list again all nexthops
>> each time you want to modify one.
>
> That would also be possible using ip -6 route change, it'll be more
> efficient for insertions and more consistent with the IPv4
> implementation. Remember that most code is in fact shared between IPv4
> and IPv6 implementations for routing protocol suites.
>
> For bird it would be much more convenient to have the same API work for
> both as the code is shared (with minor differences).
>
> The memory structure like below would make sense and you can expand it
> as well:
>
> struct ip6_nexthop {
> 	int               flags; /* algorithm per packet or hash, etc */
> 	struct list_head  *hops; /* nh_via */
> };
> struct ip6_nh {
> 	int              ifindex;
> 	struct in6_addr  rt6i_gateway;
> 	char             weight;
> 	int              flags; /* pervasive, onlink */
> };
>
> I'm not sure how to make this map correctly to the append API.. I think
> we need to make sure that all APIs either are consistent and symmetrical
> or don't work from day 1.
Maybe the error was to propose two API to insert ECMPv6 routes, but as soon as 
there is two API, one will not be symetric with what is returned by the kernel ;-)

>
> I am willing to implement this, including algorithm support using the
> netlink nexthop API, like the IPv4 implementation.. or change the IPv4
> implementation, but either way I feel they need to be consistent.
I'm not sure that this is a major argument. There is already differences between 
IPv4 and IPv6 (for example, IPv4 addresses are kept when an interface is down, 
not IPv6 addresses, netlink messages are sent when routes are removed after 
putting down an interface in IPv6 but not in IPv4). But I let other speak about 
this.
What is important is to avoid breaking existing API.

Regards,
Nicolas
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists