On 12/11/18 5:52 AM, Jan Maria Matejka wrote:
> Hello!
>
> On 9/4/18 5:57 PM, David Ahern wrote:
>> On 9/2/18 11:34 AM, David Miller wrote:
>>> From: dsah...@kernel.org
>>> Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 17:49:35 -0700
>>>
Examples
1. Single path
$ ip nexthop add id 1 via 10.99.1.2 dev
Hello!
On 9/4/18 5:57 PM, David Ahern wrote:
> On 9/2/18 11:34 AM, David Miller wrote:
>> From: dsah...@kernel.org
>> Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 17:49:35 -0700
>>
>>> Examples
>>> 1. Single path
>>> $ ip nexthop add id 1 via 10.99.1.2 dev veth1
>>> $ ip route add 10.1.1.0/24 nhid 1
>>>
>>>
On 9/2/18 11:34 AM, David Miller wrote:
> From: dsah...@kernel.org
> Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 17:49:35 -0700
>
>> Examples
>> 1. Single path
>> $ ip nexthop add id 1 via 10.99.1.2 dev veth1
>> $ ip route add 10.1.1.0/24 nhid 1
>>
>> $ ip next ls
>> id 1 via 10.99.1.2 src 10.99.1.1 de
From: dsah...@kernel.org
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 17:49:35 -0700
> Examples
> 1. Single path
> $ ip nexthop add id 1 via 10.99.1.2 dev veth1
> $ ip route add 10.1.1.0/24 nhid 1
>
> $ ip next ls
> id 1 via 10.99.1.2 src 10.99.1.1 dev veth1 scope link
>
> $ ip ro ls
> 10.1.1.
From: David Ahern
As mentioned at netconf in Seoul, we would like to introduce nexthops as
independent objects from the routes to better align with both routing
daemons and hardware and to improve route insertion times into the kernel.
This series adds nexthop objects with their own lifecycle. T
