On 3/24/18 9:59 AM, Ido Schimmel wrote:
>> As you know, my preference is to move to nexthop objects (makes fib6_nh
>> optional). I have IPv4 done; IPv6 requires this patch set. 
> 
> After going over your presentation [1] I was under the impression that
> the fib6_info will be optional, not fib6_nh: "Idea is similar to adding
> id to fib_info that is exposed to userspace. Subsequent routes pass id
> to avoid fib_info overhead".

Just using that as an analogy to explain the idea in terms of something
that already exists.

> 
> But I think misunderstood you. You want to introduce the nexthop API
> that will allow you to have multiple fib6_info pointing to the same
> fib6_nh?
> 
> 1. http://vger.kernel.org/netconf2017_files/nexthop-objects.pdf
> 

I see nexthop specs as device, gateway, lwtunnel_state and flags. That's
the basic building block. A nexthop group is multiple nexthops where
each nexthop in the group as its own weight.

The fib_info struct has more than that -- data unrelated to a netxthop
and is really a next level struct.

Reply via email to