> 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.
fe80::/64 proto kernel metric 256 nexthop dev vlan1 weight 1 nexthop dev vlan10 weight 1 nexthop dev vlan30 weight 1 nexthop dev tunnel11 weight 1 nexthop dev tunnel12 weight 1 Sorry I completely missed that, I was always looking at other route tables. Should I look at reworking this? It would be great to have these ECMP routes for other purposes. ip -6 ro show table 601 default metric 1024 nexthop dev tunnel11 weight 1 nexthop dev tunnel12 weight 1