Hi Jafar,

We noticed 6wind’s VRF implementation,  but from networking perspective,  
namespace approach
Is more like virtual-router approach rather than vrf-lite,  it is too heavy and 
does not scale to say
4000 VRF or more in a data center switch.

Logically it should be more like this:  a physical switch/router may have 
multiple-virtual router/switch
(which is by namespace), then within each namespace,  there are still needs of 
VRF within each
Namespace.

With our approach,  user now has choice to use namespace to create virtual 
router/switch as
Independent administrative domain,  and then within each namespace 
(administrative domain)
you can then support VRF within that domain.

As far ID part question, it is more to co-work with Linux the way VRF is 
implementing.
Linux have name-id pair, hence if user using our created CLI to create a VRF, 
internally
We will allocate a unique ID which will be taken by Linux kernel to create VRF 
table.
You don’t need to “input” ID, but you will see what ID is bind to the name 
using “show” cli.

Thanks,

Andrew

From: Jafar Al-Gharaibeh [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 7:26 AM
To: Andrew Qu; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [quagga-dev 12336] Re: VRF and Multiple-Instance OSPF

Andrew,

    Nice work and a well written design document. I skimmed through the 
document and here are a couple of quick comments/questions:

   The VRF implementation in this case takes a different approach than that of 
6wind's.
   6wind's VRFs are bound to different network namespaces, but in your case 
VRFs  are bound to different kernel routing table
   within the same network namespace (normally the global one). Is that correct?

   Section 7.1.1 describes how to create a new vrf table by using the command
      Router(config)# ip vrf NAME
    % bind table name NAME with id ID.

   I don't see ID in the command, was it supposed to be ip vrf NAME ID?
   Does the ID refer to  a kernel routing tabel id that is already created 
outside Quagga, or does the command actually creates a new kernel routing table?

Thanks again for sharing this,
Jafar



_______________________________________________
Quagga-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev

Reply via email to