On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 8:03 AM, David Ahern <d...@cumulusnetworks.com> wrote: > In the context of internet scale routing a requirement that always > comes up is the need to partition the available routing tables into > disjoint routing planes. A specific use case is the multi-tenancy > problem where each tenant has their own unique routing tables and in > the very least need different default gateways.
Based on this problem statement, netns would be the answer: to partition the physical router into N virtual routers. If routing is offloaded, the offload device is netns-aware to preserve the partitioning down to the HW level. I see from earlier discussions on VRF that netns is no good because it's an inefficient use of resources. I wonder if that's true in a practical way? If I have a 48-port router, I could create 24 2-port virtual routers using netns, each running routing stuff (bgp, lldp, ospf, etc). Is the netns overhead plus the routing sw duplication not going to fit on a Cumulus-class router? In other words, if noone had ever heard of VRF, we'd conclude netns given the problem statement. And then focus on inefficiencies in netns, if the implementation didn't fit a particular target. So my C in RFC is what's wrong with using netns? And can those wrongs be fixed? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
