[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87392l7xjc.fsf@guybrush.luffy.cx>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 11:40:07 +0200
From: Vincent Bernat <bernat@...fy.cx>
To: Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>
Cc: yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v2 0/1] Add support of ECMPv6
❦ 14 septembre 2012 09:59 CEST, Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com> :
> Here is an example of a command to add an ECMP route:
> $ ip -6 route add 3ffe:304:124:2306::/64 \
> nexthop via fe80::230:1bff:feb4:e05c dev eth0 weight 1 \
> nexthop via fe80::230:1bff:feb4:dd4f dev eth0 weight 1
When displaying ECMP routes, the display is different than for IPv4: we
get two distinct routes instead of an ECMP route (with nexthop
keyword).
With IPv4:
193.252.X.X/26 proto zebra metric 20
nexthop via 193.252.X.X dev bae1 weight 1
nexthop via 193.252.X.X dev bae2 weight 1
With IPv6:
2a01:c9c0:X:X::/64 via fe80::215:17ff:fe85:76b9 dev bae1 metric 11
2a01:c9c0:X:X::/64 via fe80::222:91ff:fe4e:b000 dev bae2 metric 11
If I capture the netlink message from the add command, put it in a file
and use "ip monitor file ...", I see this:
2a01:c9c0:X:X::/64
nexthop via fe80::215:17ff:fe85:76b9 dev if12 weight 1
nexthop via fe80::222:91ff:fe4e:b000 dev if11 weight 1
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.
--
Make the coupling between modules visible.
- The Elements of Programming Style (Kernighan & Plauger)
--
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