On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 08:59:10PM -0600, David Ahern wrote: > 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>
Thanks for the Cc, David. I'll need to adjust mlxsw to support this. Specifically, mlxsw_sp_fib6_rt_can_mp(). BTW, I hit this bug while looking into this: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/907050/
