On 7/4/18 8:29 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Ido Schimmel
> Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2018 00:10:41 +0300
>
>> We can have the IPv4/IPv6 code only generate a REPLACE / DELETE
>> notification for routes that are actually used for forwarding and
>> relieve listeners from the need to implement this logic t
From: Ido Schimmel
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2018 00:10:41 +0300
> We can have the IPv4/IPv6 code only generate a REPLACE / DELETE
> notification for routes that are actually used for forwarding and
> relieve listeners from the need to implement this logic themselves. I
> think this should work.
Whilst t
On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 02:02:06PM -0600, David Ahern wrote:
> It is unfortunate that mlxsw has to replicate the node lookup code.
The kernel can store multiple routes with the same prefix/length, but
only one is used for forwarding. Thus when a route is deleted it should
be potentially overwritte
On 7/3/18 7:43 AM, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 03:03:12PM -0700, dsah...@kernel.org wrote:
>> From: David Ahern
>>
>> NetworkManager likes to manage linklocal prefix routes and does so with
>> the NLM_F_APPEND flag, breaking attempts to simplify the IPv6 route
>> code and by exte
On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 03:03:12PM -0700, dsah...@kernel.org wrote:
> From: David Ahern
>
> NetworkManager likes to manage linklocal prefix routes and does so with
> the NLM_F_APPEND flag, breaking attempts to simplify the IPv6 route
> code and by extension enable multipath routes with device onl
From: David Ahern
NetworkManager likes to manage linklocal prefix routes and does so with
the NLM_F_APPEND flag, breaking attempts to simplify the IPv6 route
code and by extension enable multipath routes with device only nexthops.
Revert f34436a43092 and its followup
6eba08c3626b ("ipv6: Only em
