On Mon, 19 Oct 2015, Lou Berger wrote:
What your describing here sounds like logical routers vs VRFs.
What do you mean by that exactly?
Is there a perception here that 1 daemon : 1 VRF makes it impossible to
share routes between VRFs? That shouldn't be the case though. E.g., a bgpd
in one netns should still be able to communicate with a bgpd in another
netns via a filesystem name-spaced socket, and exchange routes. So
inter-VRF route sharing should still be quite feasible.
My hope is that the next release would provide support in at least zebra
and provide a platform of for those of us interested in doing multi-VRF
protocol work.
The issue for me is that if the only option we have for VRF is to continue
with a fixed set of single-threaded processes, that we are going to
entrench Quagga's reputation for not scaling up with increasing numbers of
CPU cores.
regards,
--
Paul Jakma [email protected] @pjakma Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
She has an alarm clock and a phone that don't ring -- they applaud.
_______________________________________________
Quagga-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
