On Mon, 8 Dec 2014, David Lamparter wrote:
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 10:04:47AM +0800, Feng Lu wrote:
The main discussion is around which is better, N-in-1 or 1-for-1?
While, many comments indicate the preference with support from only
experiences.
My question is: why not both?
Because making a protocol daemon do N-vrfs-in-1 will very likely involve a
lot of internal churn to the code + incur an ongoing maintenance cost. If
instance-per-VRF avoids some of those costs, why then still take them on?
I could maybe see zebra and bgpd supporting vrfs (bgpd more than zebra
probably), but OSPF just doesn't make sense to me.
Wwe also need at least a plan on how to support UI/config for VRFs.
Supporting muliple approaches may make that more complicated.
regards,
--
Paul Jakma [email protected] @pjakma Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
manager in the cable duct
_______________________________________________
Quagga-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
