Julian Elischer wrote:
A general purpose OS is a different beast as it has no physical
equivalent of the FIB. It may have multiple routing tables, though, to
I think setrib would be a term less likely to cause confusion then
setfib even though, in the case of your FreeBSD patches, it's really
both.
If we need to change the terminology now is the time..
I asked for comments on terminology before and this is what we
came up with.. but once it gets committed.... it gets set in stone.
The kernel forwarding table is not a RIB.
In the past some apps have tried to use it as one. They really shouldn't
do that.
There are implementation constraints on the inter-process communication
involved (PRC_ATOMIC, etc) which make it inherently unsuitable as a
place for routing daemons to exchange routes, particularly when the
system is under load, or running near load limits, as would be the case
with a tightly engineered embedded system.
I understand folk went down that road in the past, as a means to get
something up and running quickly as a working demo, or as a hangover
from the days when they were the only tools around, but it isn't the way
to build a comms infrastructure.
These days general purpose OSes are getting closer to specialised comms
equipment in terms of what they can do, but more importantly, so are
people's expectations of them -- and thus people's concern about whether
or not it works tends to follow.
cheers
BMS
_______________________________________________
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
