Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:31:11 +0000 From: "Bruce M. Simpson" <bms@FreeBSD.org> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: FreeBSD Net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: bikeshed for all! Message-ID: <476109EF.10808@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <476061FD.8050500@elischer.org> References: <476061FD.8050500@elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Julian Elischer wrote: > > I need a word to use to describe the network view one is currently on.. > e.g. if you are usinghe second routing table, you could say I've set > xxx to 1 > (0 based).. > > > current;y in my code I'm using 'universe' but I don't like that.. I would really really like it if we could stop using the term "routing" here. The kernel forwards, it does not route -- routing protocols route. I know that when BSD started out the distinction was not so clear, but it is in most modern implementations, Windows, IOS etc all draw a distinction between the currently winning routes used for forwarding, and the routes which are actually exchanged or learnt. So my vote is for "forwarding domain". I understand that this feature is something which swaps in a different forwarding table for the application one is currently running? And that it works in a manner similar to chroot() ? Is this different or the same as the pf/ipf/ipfw tag you mention? Also, can we retain compatibility with OpenBSD for now, for any equal-cost path stuff we do? Cheers... BMS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?476109EF.10808>