Hello guys.

I would like to hear your opinion on the following:

[root@f11 ~]# ip -6 route list 3ffe::1:1
[root@f11 ~]# ip -6 route add 3ffe::1:1 via fe80::20c:29ff:fe4c:3108 dev eth0 metric 1024
[root@f11 ~]# ip -6 route list 3ffe::1:1
3ffe::1:1 via fe80::20c:29ff:fe4c:3108 dev eth0  metric 1024  mtu 1500 advmss 1440 hoplimit 4294967295
[root@f11 ~]# ip -6 route change 3ffe::1:1 via fe80::20c:29ff:fe4c:3108 dev eth0 metric 100
[root@f11 ~]# ip -6 route list 3ffe::1:1
3ffe::1:1 via fe80::20c:29ff:fe4c:3108 dev eth0  metric 100  mtu 1500 advmss 1440 hoplimit 4294967295
3ffe::1:1 via fe80::20c:29ff:fe4c:3108 dev eth0  metric 1024  mtu 1500 advmss 1440 hoplimit 4294967295
[root@f11 ~]#

Now do you think this is the right behaviour? I would expect the first route to
be replaced. The same result is when you do "ip -6 route replace"

Thanks

Jirka
--

[ message continues ]

Hi,


Well, even in IPv4 you cannot change metric;
same route can be installed e.g., for manual
backup route entry.

But well, NLM_F_REPLACE handler is completely
missing in IPv6.  I think we are okay with
"replace" (NLM_F_CREATE|NLM_F_REPLACE) but we
could return "no such route" for "change"
(NLM_F_REPLACE).

--yoshfuji
--

[ message continues ]