On 4/30/18 3:15 PM, Thomas Winter wrote: > It is valid to have static routes where the nexthop > is an interface not an address such as tunnels. > For IPv4 it was possible to use ECMP on these routes > but not for IPv6. > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Winter <thomas.win...@alliedtelesis.co.nz> > Cc: David Ahern <dsah...@gmail.com> > Cc: "David S. Miller" <da...@davemloft.net> > Cc: Alexey Kuznetsov <kuz...@ms2.inr.ac.ru> > Cc: Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshf...@linux-ipv6.org> > --- > include/net/ip6_route.h | 3 +-- > net/ipv6/ip6_fib.c | 3 --- > 2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-) >
Interesting. Existing code inserts the dev nexthop as a separate route. Change looks good to me. Acked-by: David Ahern <dsah...@gmail.com>
