Victor Faion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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?
If it is just a routing protocol you don't need Click. It will be simpler if you use the existing UNIX kernel forwarding, and implement LSR as a separate XORP process. Pavlin > Victor > _______________________________________________ > Xorp-hackers mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-hackers _______________________________________________ Xorp-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-hackers
