OK I will try to implement it the way you suggested. Thank you for all the help, I'm sure I'll be back with more questions :)
Victor On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 00:41, Pavlin Radoslavov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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
