Date: Fri, 09 May 2008 21:58:30 -0700 From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Zaphod Beeblebrox <zbeeble@gmail.com> Cc: FreeBSD Current <current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Multiple routing table support commited Message-ID: <48252B76.5030102@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <5f67a8c40805092057y166d549x2dc2fe397f016c79@mail.gmail.com> References: <4824F1B4.6010302@elischer.org> <5f67a8c40805092057y166d549x2dc2fe397f016c79@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote: > On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 8:52 PM, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org > <mailto:julian@elischer.org>> wrote: > > I have committed the base of teh Multi-routing-table support. > I am current;y waiting for it to loop back to me before a final > make universe test, but I think it should be ok. > if you do nothing you should not see any difference. > > for a description of what and how, look at: > > http://perforce.freebsd.org/fileViewer.cgi?FSPC=//depot/user/julian/routing/plan.txt > > > >From my read of your file, this doesn't address FreeBSD's utter lack > of what they often call an RIB --- where routes are chosen to be put > into the FIB. Zebra does this to some extent, but there is one glaring > case where zebra cannot fix the problem and FreeBSD's actions need be > improved. There is a reason this stuff is called FIB stuff and not RIB stuff.. > > Consider a colocation facility where customer equipment is on a vlan and > every one of these vlan's has two routers (each advertising RIP default > routes to the customer equipment). All of these routers synchronize > with OSPF. > > Now ... if vlan 10 on router-a and router-b both service a particular > customer, you would (on router-a) > > ifconfig vlan10 192.168.10.1/24 <http://192.168.10.1/24>; what has http got to do with ifconfig? (or did your email agent add that?) > > ... and on router-b > > ifconfig vlan10 192.168.10.2/24 <http://192.168.10.2/24>; > > ... and then the customer would take the other addresses on that network > and listen to RIP for his default route. > > But there's a problem. When you type this command on router-a, it will > dutifully advertise 192.168.10.0/24 <http://192.168.10.0/24>; to OSPF ... > including to router-b... at which point the ifconfig command on router-b > will fail unless you offline OSPF on router-b (which is an unattractive > solution). > > Now... some would argue that for all other uses of multiple routes, > zebra forms an adequate solution. However, it does not address this > particular problem and there are far more uses of multiple identical > routes (including multipath, etc) s.t. FreeBSD really does need a > multiple route plan. yes but that's not the problem I'm trying to solve. It IS however related to the multipath code that Qing Li committed a couple of weeks ago..
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?48252B76.5030102>