On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 06:03:25PM +0200, Nicolas Dichtel wrote: > Hi Jafar and Andrew, > > I think that both development are complementary. The point that bother me is > to > call this 'vrf-lite', it seems to be more policy based routing. As you said, > we > can easily imagine a scenario with netns + multiple routing table. Calling it > vrf will confuse the user. > With only multiple tables, you cannot assign the same address multiple times > for > example. VRF is usally more complete. > On netdev mailing list (linux networking kernel), several people already > report > that, with multiple table, some corner case cannot be solved when they tried > to > implement VRF. > > Note also that there are develomement in the linux kernel to ease VRF usage > and > scalability. For example, Eric Biederman has recently post a patch to lighten > the size of a netns. I've also post some patches to be able to assign an id to > peer netns and ease netlink management.
I agree. VRF is NOT multiple routing tables with policies. Network namespaces match VRF requirements much better. -- Len Sorensen _______________________________________________ Quagga-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
