From: David Ahern
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 06:13:43 -0600
> On 7/16/18 3:09 PM, David Miller wrote:
>>
>> Is this a -stable candidate?
>>
>
> I think so. The API is not doing what the user requested, even though
> the route add does not fail.
Ok, queued up, thanks.
On 7/16/18 3:09 PM, David Miller wrote:
>
> Is this a -stable candidate?
>
I think so. The API is not doing what the user requested, even though
the route add does not fail.
From: dsah...@kernel.org
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2018 09:35:19 -0700
> From: David Ahern
>
> Eric reported that reverting the patch that fixed and simplified IPv6
> multipath routes means reverting back to invalid userspace notifications.
> eg.,
> $ ip -6 route add 2001:db8:1::/64 nexthop dev eth0
On 7/16/18 10:09 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Yes, I guess we have no real choice for the moment.
It is unfortunate that we are forever stuck with this mess from a short
sighted implementation years ago. From a uapi perspective, dev-only
nexthops and proper add-to/append/replace semantics should
On 07/15/2018 09:35 AM, dsah...@kernel.org wrote:
> From: David Ahern
>
> Eric reported that reverting the patch that fixed and simplified IPv6
> multipath routes means reverting back to invalid userspace notifications.
> eg.,
> $ ip -6 route add 2001:db8:1::/64 nexthop dev eth0 nexthop dev
From: David Ahern
Eric reported that reverting the patch that fixed and simplified IPv6
multipath routes means reverting back to invalid userspace notifications.
eg.,
$ ip -6 route add 2001:db8:1::/64 nexthop dev eth0 nexthop dev eth1
only generates a single notification:
2001:db8:1::/64 dev
