Hi Alain,
On Tue, 26 May 2015, Alain Ritoux wrote:
Multi daemon have issue from configuration point of view; and I agree
this may/should /will? be fixed; anyway we do have a solution based on a
single daemon, managing VRF through netns. And I truly believe this
solution really makes sense. The use case was given, and there is
running code available NOW.
There's a good bit of value in that, sure. ;)
There has already been some remarks on the patchset about the code
itself; my believe is that they are addressed now (of course if there is
still some code that needs to be reworked, it will be done)
Can we see the ospfd changes needed? That will be the best case wrt churn
as it already went through lots of churn long ago to add (struct ospf *)
arguments everywhere.
So let's move forward !
PS: The same thing applies for some OSPF patches once proposed by
Cumulus: they are in favor on one daemon per OSPF instance (and combined
with the VRF patch should allow one OSPF per VRF), I'm more in favor of
one daemon with one instance per internal context: the use case as we
already discussed are simply not the same; I won't fight against their
approach because both make sense and they can co-exists;
They can co-exist, sure. The question is, if you have the multi-daemon
approach, do you need the single-daemon way?
regards,
--
Paul Jakma p...@jakma.org @pjakma Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
Superstition, idolatry, and hypocrisy have ample wages, but truth goes
a-begging.
-- Martin Luther
_______________________________________________
Quagga-dev mailing list
Quagga-dev@lists.quagga.net
https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
