On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 10:42:51AM -0700, David Ahern wrote: > On 12/31/17 9:15 AM, Ido Schimmel wrote: > > IPv4 and IPv6 react differently to a netdev being unregistered. In IPv4, > > in case the netdev is used as a nexthop device in a multipath route, the > > entire route is flushed. > > > > However, IPv6 only removes the nexthops associated with the unregistered > > netdev. > > > > Align IPv4 and IPv6 and flush all the sibling routes when a nexthop > > device is unregistered. > > > > Signed-off-by: Ido Schimmel <ido...@mellanox.com> > > --- > > net/ipv6/route.c | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- > > 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > not so sure about this one.
Yea, I wasn't sure about it either. I'll drop it and fix the tests accordingly. > When we get to nexthops as separate objects, we can bring in consistency > by allowing ipv4 routes to just drop a single nexthop in the route > versus the behavior today. Agreed.
