Martin Pieuchot([email protected]) on 2016.06.08 20:50:29 +0200: > On 08/06/16(Wed) 19:51, Sebastian Benoit wrote: > > [...] > > i dont see why this would be a problem > > > > however: > > > > + ... if we were going to use > > + * the last available route, but it got removed, we'll hit > > + * the end of the list and then pick the first route. > > > > would this make the first route get more traffic than the others, > > statistically? > > What do you mean by "statistically"? The comment apply to route lookups > done by a CPU while another CPU is modifying the multipath list. This > should be a completely negligible amount of lookups.
thanks for explaining that. i thougt this might happen more often. > Now assuming that you are voluntarily generating a lot of multipath route > changes to trigger this case, what you call "the first" route will most > likely be a different route after every change. So it should not matter ;)
