On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 18:46, Pavlin Radoslavov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Victor Faion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > I wanted to use my forwarding engine (which has its own forwarding table) > > together with my own protocol (at the application layer, using sockets) > with > > XORP. I wasn't sure if it's better to implement a separate process that > > interacts with XORP's FEA (this would be the forwarding engine) and > another > > process that represents the protocol or if I should implement all of this > > using Click and then plug it into XORP (or just use it only with Click). > In > > other words, how much of XORP's code I would need to change to do this > and > > would it be easier to do it in Click or to use both? > > Without additional info about your protocol it is difficult to give > you advice that will fit best your specific needs. > > If I make the assumption that your control protocol is similar to, say, > OSPF or RIP, my generalized advice would be to implement your > control protocol as a separate process that interacts with the XORP > FEA. If you don't have any specific requirements, you shouldn't need > any additional changes to XORP. > > > Re. your question of XORP vs. Click. > From XORP's perspective, Click is an IPv4/IPv6 data plane, > though Click itself is much more than that. > Hence, if you implement your protocol in XORP, the "shall I use > XORP+Click" question becomes a question of whether you want to use > Click as the IPv4/IPv6 data plane. > On the other hand, if you have a relatively simple protocol with > some unusual requirements (say, it requires tight integration with > the data plane), and the existing UNIX kernel API is not sufficient, > you might be able to save time getting the initial prototype working > if you use only Click. > > Hope that helps, > Pavlin > > > > > Victor > > _______________________________________________ > > Xorp-hackers mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-hackers > Hello, Thank you for the response, the control protocol is a link-state routing protocol. It uses LSR but also needs to associate additional information with hosts and this is why I think I might need to make another XORP process for this protocol, and I think its easier to plug in a new protocol into XORP rather than Click. As for using Click as the data plane, I could make my forwarding table as a Click element, or would it be simpler to do it as a separate XORP process without relying on Click? Victor
_______________________________________________ Xorp-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-hackers
