[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <73b4cf4b-4e65-3bc0-15c8-8a50ff6e4bdc@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2017 11:15:58 -0600
From: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To: Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@...tstofly.org>,
David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
Robert Shearman <rshearma@...cade.com>,
Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Unable to add v6 multipath route with same nexthops but different
MPLS labels
On 7/5/17 9:39 AM, Lennert Buytenhek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> FWIW, this doesn't work:
>
> # ip -6 route add 1234::/16 \
> nexthop encap mpls 10 via fe80::1 dev ens3 \
> nexthop encap mpls 20 via fe80::1 dev ens3
> RTNETLINK answers: File exists
>
> While this does:
>
> # ip -6 route chg 1234::/16
> nexthop encap mpls 10 via fe80::1 dev ens3
> nexthop encap mpls 20 via fe80::2 dev ens3
> # ip -6 route
> 1234::/16 encap mpls 10 via fe80::1 dev ens3 metric 1024 pref medium
> 1234::/16 encap mpls 20 via fe80::2 dev ens3 metric 1024 pref medium
> [...]
>
> ECMPing over different LSPs that share a nexthop router seems like a
> legitimate use case to me. Is this restriction intentional or just an
> accident? (The same thing works fine in v4 land, where multipath
> routes are handled differently.)
>
> Thanks in advance!
Seems like a failure to compare lwt state. Will send a patch.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists