Domain is such an overloaded term in networking that I *really* think it will be an even more confusing name -- and should be avoided.
Please either pick something that isn't already over loaded (e.g., logical XYZ) or is less "creative" (e.g., MRIB as in "MRIB enables quagga to manage multiple routing information bases" -- or even just RIB). Also, responding to Donald's comment: it seems to me that the current patch set is closer to vrf-lite than logical routers/systems due to the single control model and lack of separable administration options. That said, I think 'MRF' is much better choice than 'domain'. Thanks, Lou On 06/05/2015 05:49 AM, Alain Ritoux wrote: > Hi all, > > I fully agree; let's move to the "domain" name for this feature. Then > high level part of the feature can be summarized into: > "quagga is able to manage several routing tables/domains, period.". > > The "low level" part is: how do I feed kernel with those tables; and > this is directly correlated to what those different tables are used > for : populate netns, VRFs, MRFs, any mix of indirection levels, etc. > which is of course very OS-dependent. > > Best regards, > Alain > > > > On 06/05/2015 10:44 AM, Donald Sharp wrote: >> Cisco supports logical routers( ala VDC's in the NX/OS line), it's >> purely managed at the application level though. Logical Routers(or >> VDC's) are roughly equivalent to the set of patches you have put forward >> though, especially with how the netns completely separates the >> processes. This is the reason why in our OOB conversation with Vincent >> that we argued for calling the construct something else besides VRF's. >> To much baggage with expectations on behavior. This is the same reason >> that we are calling our 'VRF' implementation 'MRF' instead. >> >> I wouldn't attempt to match the Cisco cli since you are going to put >> forward a patch to name this feature domain's. >> >> donald >> >> On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 3:05 AM, Nicolas Dichtel >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Le 04/06/2015 19:36, Jorge Boncompte a écrit : >> >> El 04/06/15 a las 14:10, Nicolas Dichtel escribió: >> >> From: Feng Lu <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> >> We realize VRFs with linux netns by default. The main job is >> to associate a VRF with a netns. Currently this is done by >> the configuration: >> >> [no] vrf N netns <netns-name> >> >> >> Wouldn't be better if this command were in a Cisco >> compatible syntax? >> >> Does Cisco support Linux netns? I'm not aware of that, so like any >> non Cisco >> related Quagga's feature, we cannot create compability syntax of >> something that >> does not exist ;-) >> > > _______________________________________________ > Quagga-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev > _______________________________________________ Quagga-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
