lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Wed, 5 Jul 2017 18:39:58 +0300
From:   Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@...tstofly.org>
To:     David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
        Robert Shearman <rshearma@...cade.com>,
        Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Unable to add v6 multipath route with same nexthops but different
 MPLS labels

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!


Cheers,
Lennert

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ