Baptiste - I agree with your approach, getting your code changes in then adding in VRF support. One change I would recommend in the patch is to isolate the #ifdef HAVE_FIB as much as possible. Create a wrapper function for RTM_NEWADDR that returns if the interface should be used. Also have get_active_fib visible at all times and have it return the correct value for use with fib's and without.
donald On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Baptiste Daroussin < [email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 06:12:03PM +0100, Paul Jakma wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I've gone through some more of the patchwork and bugzilla backlog. > > > > > http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/quagga.git/log/?h=volatile/patch-tracking/2/proposed/ff > > > > More to catch up on, but might as well checkpoint here. Mostly pimd and > > some isisd stuff. Sanity checks (e.g. right version of the patch), > > Acks/Nacks, etc., would be really useful. Not gotten to NHRP. > > > > Longer comments ideally should go on a patch-specific Quagga-dev thread, > > e.g. reply in the original thread of the patch - if it exists and you > have > > it handy. > > > [snip] > > > > Add support for FreeBSD distinct kernel FIBs > > https://bugzilla.quagga.net/show_bug.cgi?id=839 > > VRF integration? Should this be integrated with the VRF ID already being > > kept somehow? > > > > I think there is a need for 2 differents implementations: > The one I proposed which is make quagga run in a FIB and respect that FIB. > The second would be make quagga handle the fib and in that case yes it > would > need a VRF implementation. > > For my use case I did only need the first and it was quite easy to > implement. > The second would take more time, but I agree in most cases, it would be > more > interesting for users than the first. > > I can work later on implementing the second once the first is in. > > Best regards, > Bapt >
_______________________________________________ Quagga-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
