Well as I've argued before Lede ideally should be using to Kernel Namespaces (poor mans containers) for at a minimum the firewall and per-interface routing instances.
The stuff I am running at home is mostly on cheap Atom board, so it's a matter of squeezing out unneeded cruft on the platform. Also I don't want to be admining centos/rhel servers at home. On 5 January 2018 at 10:47, Dave Taht <dave.t...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 1:44 PM, Joel Wirāmu Pauling <j...@aenertia.net> > wrote: > > > > > > On 5 January 2018 at 01:09, Jonathan Morton <chromati...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> I don't think we need to worry about it too much in a router context. > >> Virtual server folks, OTOH... > >> > >> - Jonathan Morton > >> > > Disagree - The Router is pretty much synonymous with NFV > > > > ; I run my lede instances at home on hypervisors - and this is definitely > > the norm in Datacentres now. We need to work through this quite > carefully. > > Yes, the NFV case is serious and what I concluded we had most to worry > about - before starting to worry about the lower end router chips > themselves. But I wasn't aware that people were actually trying to run > lede in that, I'd kind of expected > a more server-like distro to be used there. Why lede in a NFV? Ease of > configuration? Reduced attack surface? (hah) > > The only x86 chip I use (aside from simulations) is the AMD one in the > apu2, which I don't know enough about as per speculation... > > -- > > Dave Täht > CEO, TekLibre, LLC > http://www.teklibre.com > Tel: 1-669-226-2619 >
_______________________________________________ Cerowrt-devel mailing list Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel