Le 27/01/2017 à 17:36, David Ahern a écrit : > On 1/27/17 9:29 AM, Nicolas Dichtel wrote: >> Le 26/01/2017 à 19:00, David Miller a écrit : >>> From: David Ahern <d...@cumulusnetworks.com> >> [snip] >>>> Quagga does not properly handle IPv6 multipath routes received from >>>> the kernel. I checked this with debian/jessie version and our >>>> version, and Donald reviewed the source. It is broken. >>> >>> If this is true, quagga is asbolutely not an argument for this "breaking" >>> something. It doesn't break anything. >> Ok, my tests also shows that quagga is buggy. >> Let's change the way to advertise these routes. >> >> It would be great to also use RTA_MULTIPATH when a route is deleted (like in >> your patch 1/2). > > I have updated notifications to use RTA_MULTIPATH. Working on the multipath > add/delete/replace permutations now and what the notification looks like. > Add/replace is easy and the notifications use RTA_MULTIPATH. Notifications > for the delete path are complicated given that a delete could remove only a > subset of nexthops. Given that, we might have to settle for a notification > for each nexthop delete. Ok, I give it a quick look and I agree it seems not so easy.
> >> >> Note that there is still a difference between ipv4 and ipv6: in ipv4 when a >> nexthop is added/updated/removed, the whole route must be deleted and added >> again. In IPv6, nexthop can be managed one by one. >> It means that in ipv4, the full route is always dumped, which is not the >> case in >> ipv6. >> > > Yes. I have been working on how to delete a nexthop within an IPv4 route. It > is much more complicated given how the route is stored compared to IPv6. > Ok.
