[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <508966E1.2050205@6wind.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 18:20:49 +0200
From: Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>
To: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
CC: netdev@...r.kernel.org, joe@...ches.com, bernat@...fy.cx,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org,
davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2 2/2] ip: remove NLM_F_EXCL in case of ECMPv6
routes
Le 25/10/2012 18:06, Stephen Hemminger a écrit :
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 14:42:56 +0200
> Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com> wrote:
>
>> ECMPv6 routes are added each one after the other by the kernel, so we should
>> avoid to set the flag NLM_F_EXCL.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>
>> ---
>> ip/iproute.c | 5 ++++-
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/ip/iproute.c b/ip/iproute.c
>> index c60156f..799a70e 100644
>> --- a/ip/iproute.c
>> +++ b/ip/iproute.c
>> @@ -694,8 +694,11 @@ int parse_nexthops(struct nlmsghdr *n, struct rtmsg *r, int argc, char **argv)
>> rtnh = RTNH_NEXT(rtnh);
>> }
>>
>> - if (rta->rta_len > RTA_LENGTH(0))
>> + if (rta->rta_len > RTA_LENGTH(0)) {
>> addattr_l(n, 1024, RTA_MULTIPATH, RTA_DATA(rta), RTA_PAYLOAD(rta));
>> + if (r->rtm_family == AF_INET6)
>> + n->nlmsg_flags &= ~NLM_F_EXCL;
>> + }
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>
> Shouldn't this be true for multipath IPv4 as well?
>
In IPv4, the message is treating in one shot, because all nexthops are added in
the route. In IPv6, each nexthop is added like a single route and then they are
linked together.
--
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