[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180502190401.GA470@splinter>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2018 22:04:01 +0300
From: Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>
To: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Thomas.Winter@...iedtelesis.co.nz, davem@...emloft.net,
Ido Schimmel <idosch@...lanox.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
roopa@...ulusnetworks.com, nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com,
pch@...bogen.com, jkbs@...hat.com, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org,
mlxsw@...lanox.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/4] ipv6: Calculate hash thresholds for IPv6
nexthops
On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 12:58:56PM -0600, David Ahern wrote:
> On 5/2/18 12:53 PM, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> >
> > So this fixes the issue for me. To reproduce:
> >
> > # ip -6 address add 2001:db8::1/64 dev dummy0
> > # ip -6 address add 2001:db8::1/64 dev dummy1
> >
> > This reproduces the issue because due to above commit both local routes
> > are considered siblings... :/
> >
> > local 2001:db8::1 proto kernel metric 0
> > nexthop dev dummy0 weight 1
> > nexthop dev dummy1 weight 1 pref medium
> >
> > I think it's best to revert the patch and have Thomas submit a fixed
> > version to net-next. I was actually surprised to see it applied to net.
>
> ugly side effect of the way ecmp routes are managed in IPv6. I think
> revert is the best option for now.
OK. I'll send a patch.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists