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"
