Olivier,
Have you considered introducing a generic TED (topology database)
deamon in parallel to zebra? I think this would more closely match what
other implementations have done and there are many advantages over
direct protocol exchanges.
And yes, I know this question/topic is orthogonal to the current
question/thread on shm vs ipc/rpc.
Lou
On 3/3/2015 12:37 PM, Olivier Dugeon wrote:
> Hello Dinesh,
>
> What do you mean by 'may no longer be isolated from each other' ? They
> are already link to the zebra daemon.
> In order to implement BGP-LS, we need some communication between OSFP,
> IS-IS and BGP. Of course, this will
> break this isolation principle, but wathever the solution will be.
>
> Regards
>
> Olivier
>
> Le 03/03/2015 16:31, Dinesh Dutt a écrit :
>> +1, plus the issue that the various daemons may no longer be isolated
>> from each other due to this shm,
>>
>> Dinesh
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 7:19 AM, Greg Troxel <[email protected]
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> My basic opinion is that shm interfaces end up being painful for
>> various
>> reasons, including portability but also leaving shm segments around.
>> Since this is control plane, and sockets are fast anyway, I don't see
>> any reason to get wrapped up in shm.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Quagga-dev mailing list
>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>> https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Quagga-dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
_______________________________________________
Quagga-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
