Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 08:49:05 +0000 From: "Bruce M. Simpson" <bms@FreeBSD.org> To: mosaic <alecto.erinye@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: plans for multiple routing tables Message-ID: <474BDA01.7050505@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <910e7ff90711240859h722b6bf8jf294e3622f516fa@mail.gmail.com> References: <910e7ff90711240859h722b6bf8jf294e3622f516fa@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
mosaic wrote: > I would like to ask, whether there are any plans to implement multiple > route tables, like OpenBSD did: > > http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/openbsd/2006-10/2665.html > Yup, we're aware of these changes. [The feature you're referring to is actually the ability to have multiple choices for next-hops, not multiple routing tables -- that's just how the next-hops might conceptually be presented to the user.] > I'm well aware of fact that i can do policy routing via pf/ipf/ipfw as well of > > http://imunes.tel.fer.hr/virtnet/ > Again, not entirely the same thing. IMUNES is overkill for most people's requirements, and is about more than 'just' the forwarding plane; it is however a novel and interesting way of doing network simulation or virtualization. There are a whole bunch of potential issues with implementing multipath right. I would suggest, for now, that we just import the OpenBSD changes to the existing BSD FIB, as it is a relatively low change in terms of code. I've responded to Julian off-list about his plans as a number of groups and individuals have been looking at this issue. I would like to see this work out OK, but I do not have 'copious free time' in which to do this at the moment -- I gotta earn a living! regards, BMS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?474BDA01.7050505>