Hi Lennar, My comments are in line,
-----Original Message----- From: Lennart Sorensen [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 11:03 AM To: Nicolas Dichtel Cc: Andrew Qu; Jafar Al-Gharaibeh; [email protected] Subject: [quagga-dev 12365] Re: VRF and Multiple-Instance OSPF 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. I disagree with this. The way network namespace is configured and used is as I said earlier more like Virtual router or virtual switch that virtualizing a physical box into multiple Logical real network device, for example: OSPF/ISIS in NamespaceA and OSPF/ISIS in NamespaceB relationthip is network adjacency, A link in namespaceA and a link in namespaceB can be connected and form OSPF/ISIS Network adjacency. As you can't not call two different routers (even they have separate routing table) as VRF, Same way, you can't call namespace approach as VRF. They are just different routers. The routing table managed by namespace is more like routing table managed by physically Different routers, we can't call this as VRF. At least not the VRF term that has Been used by network operators. VRF approach is within ONE logical router/switch that via multiple routing instances or single instance To build multiple routing table which can fall back to one global routing table if Use configured. Thanks, Andrew -- Len Sorensen _______________________________________________ Quagga-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev ************* Email Confidentiality Notice ******************** The information contained in this e-mail message (including any attachments) may be confidential, proprietary, privileged, or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable laws. It is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). Any use, dissemination, distribution, printing, retaining or copying of this e-mail (including its attachments) by unintended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not an intended recipient of this e-mail, or believe that you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately (by replying to this e-mail), delete any and all copies of this e-mail (including any attachments) from your system, and do not disclose the content of this e-mail to any other person. Thank you! _______________________________________________ Quagga-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
