On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 06:20:11PM +0000, Andrew Qu wrote: > 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.
VRF needs more than just namespaces, but certainly different vrf instances can have the same IP addresses in use which does not get along well with just using multiple routing tables in my experience. Namespaces do allow the use of the same IP addresses in different instances, which can be used with other stuff to give VRF support. Now if you are willing to not allow reuse of IP addresses in different VRFs, then OK you can do it without namespaces. I don't think that is an acceptable limitation though. -- Len Sorensen _______________________________________________ Quagga-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
