Hi, On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 11:34:02AM +0200, Vitkovsky, Adam wrote: > So is junos and ios really coded to carve up a separate FIB tables each > with it's own table preamble and stuff + adjacency table for each vrf?
As you need a separate adjacency table anyway, what's wrong with that?
> As I believe it's possible to have a common FIB with some sort of a marker
> asociated with each table entry -describing the vrf participation
Think through the bits of my previous mail (which you quoted!) on why this
is tricky, and makes either managing the FIB complicated (= bug-prone) or
lookups slow. You don't want either, so where's the percieved benefit of
having a single FIB "with markers"?
> Than wen you come out an interface asociated with a particular marker (vrf)
> the lookup would be done only on a subset of prefixes with the marker
> matching the one asociated with the interface
> -though I'm not sure whether this would work with the common adjacency table
> and it's l2 overrides
Reasonably fast data structures don't permit "and only consult those
bits in the trie (or tree) with a marker matching" - because that wouldn't
be fast anymore.
gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
//www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany [email protected]
fax: +49-89-35655025 [email protected]
pgpz65Lti5am6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
