From: Thomas Winter
Date: Tue, 1 May 2018 09:15:29 +1200
> 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
Applied, thank you.
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.
> >
> >
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
> Cc: David Ahern
> Cc: "David S. Miller"
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
Cc: David Ahern
Cc: "David S. Miller"
Cc: Alexey Kuznetsov
Cc: Hideaki YOSHIFUJI
---
include
