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.
