The difference is that with namespaces in linux I get more than a traditional vrf. People may want to take advantage of that and might get confused if vrf is choosen. I agree that it should be called something besides vrf. Since this is 6wind's patch, they should be able to name it appropriately :)
donald On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Jorge Boncompte <[email protected]> wrote: > El 05/06/15 a las 09:05, Nicolas Dichtel escribió: > > 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]> >>>> >>>> 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 ;-) >> > > Please tell me that you are kidding and this is not a NIH problem. > ;-) > > What's the problem in calling a VRF a VRF in quagga. I have been > maintaining for the last ten years my own branch of quagga with VRF support > for my old company with support for ip rules -> linux-vrf -> netns using a > Cisco compatible syntax, so I think it's possible. > > If you need extensions just add new commands, but IMHO the CLI > syntax for the basic VRF features should be as close as possible as the > Cisco syntax that the vty tries to mimic. > > Just my 2c. > > Jorge > >
_______________________________________________ Quagga-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
