Hi all
I felt that "domain" was less loaded than "VRF", but I may be wrong, and
I won't fight on names. The important thing is to choose a name quite
explicit, but without too much background, so that it's kept separated
to where they are stored/used by the kernel.
That said, in quagga code, rib is pretty used, so anything too close
would create confusion; so something like
CLI level:
logical-table XXX (... and here the OS specific sutff to describe
where it will be installed ...)
e.g. logical-table 1 netns /var/run/VRF1
Code level:
s/vrfid/ltid (standing for logical table index)
seems good to me. I'm (obviously) no expert at naming things, so as
long as we agree on the goal of the naming, it's up to you guys !
Best regards
Alain
On 06/05/2015 12:24 PM, Lou Berger wrote:
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
