On 12/21/2015 2:18 PM, Andrew Qu wrote:
Hi Jafar,
I didn’t mean to conclude anything yet. With a few years of effort in
the past trying to bring MTR
to customer but obviously failed to achieve what we wanted, hence if
the effort is by anyway
to be re-initiated, want to know If this time is different than last
time from network use case, hence
the asking to understand.
I am not familiar with previous efforts to do MTR-OSPF in Quagga,
and this is why I am bringing up the discussion here. When you refer to
MTR and your failed attempt to achieve what you want, are you talking
about the work I referenced in the original post, or something else?
My confusion is that if we want to enable MTR hop by hop using IGP
such as OSPF, then
without the support in the network device, what is the use of doing
it using IGP?
What do you mean by hardware support? We want to populate different
routing tables using different OSPF topologies and then use rout
policies to pick an appropriate table - What am I missing here?
Then if you want to use MTR on just selected devices in the network
that are capable of forwarding
packets according to MTR, then I am not sure if it is right thing to
do MTR in OSPF.
Basically, my intention is to understand the requirements of MTR in OSPF.
We have Linux/Quagga routers running OSPF, and as I mentioned above
we want to be able to route different classes (protocols, ports, dscp)
of traffic differently. This should happen on all routers in the
network. This depends on the ability of OSPF to build different spf
trees based on different metrics for each link.
--Jafar
*From:*Jafar Al-Gharaibeh [mailto:[email protected]]
*Sent:* Monday, December 21, 2015 9:39 AM
*To:* Andrew Qu; Donald Sharp; Daniel Walton
*Cc:* Quagga Devel
*Subject:* Re: [quagga-dev 14302] Re: Multi-Topology Routing in OSPF
On 12/20/2015 11:51 PM, Andrew Qu wrote:
In order to support MTR, we worked hard as well to design our
ASIC in catalyst 6500 family. J
That feature is very ASIC resource demanding and I think that was
latest HW piece can do MTR forwarding.
Without ASIC that can support MTR in the industry now, could
Jafar share something with us why we need to
develop MTR routing?
I don't know if I fully understand the ASIC/lack-of-MTR-support
comment and why that should stop Quagga from getting this support. We
run Quagga on platforms that can do MTR if Quagga supports it. As of
why do we need MTR - are you suggesting that it is not needed at all?
or it doesn't bring anything to the table that we can't do using other
techniques? Can you please elaborate?
Thanks,
Jafar
My personal believe is that with the introduction of source based
routing scheme recently (
such as segment routing), MTR may be easier to be supported in the
network end-to-end that way.
Thanks,
Andrew
*From:*Donald Sharp [mailto:[email protected]]
*Sent:* Sunday, December 20, 2015 6:34 AM
*To:* Daniel Walton
*Cc:* Jafar Al-Gharaibeh; Quagga Devel
*Subject:* [quagga-dev 14302] Re: Multi-Topology Routing in OSPF
It shipped and then got shelved because it was available on one
platform and no-one was using it.
But yes I spent a large amount of time getting it to work under EIGRP :)
donald
On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 8:55 AM, Daniel Walton
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Jafar Al-Gharaibeh <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi Everyone,
I have been looking into the ability to support multiple cost
metrics per link for ospf, which is something that I brought up in our
first Quagga monthly meeting. The "official" term for that is
Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF which is described in RFC 4915
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4915).
After some digging I found that this was actually brought up 6 years
ago on this list:
https://lists.quagga.net/pipermail/quagga-dev/2009-July/006789.html
And It seems like there was a collective effort to get this up and
running with progress on github here:
https://github.com/tomhenderson/quagga-mtr/
I see names like Paul, Vincent, Joakim among others who had
contributed to this effort. I haven't checked to see how far did this
go but it seems nobody has touched it in 5 years. Multi routing table
support was not very common at the time in Linux kernels, and the same
can be said about VRF which are things that could have hindered the
move at the time but I'm not sure.
Can anyone tell me please about that project or any similar efforts?
Somewhat related...didn't cisco eventually abandon MTR? I remember
them dumping huge resources into this but if my memory is correct the
whole project was cancelled (from googling it looks like it did ship
though)
Daniel
_______________________________________________
Quagga-dev mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
************* Email Confidentiality Notice ********************
The information contained in this e-mail message (including any
attachments) may be confidential, proprietary, privileged, or otherwise
exempt from disclosure under applicable laws. It is intended to be
conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). Any use, dissemination,
distribution, printing, retaining or copying of this e-mail (including its
attachments) by unintended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may
be unlawful. If you are not an intended recipient of this e-mail, or believe
that you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender
immediately (by replying to this e-mail), delete any and all copies of
this e-mail (including any attachments) from your system, and do not
disclose the content of this e-mail to any other person. Thank you!
************* Email Confidentiality Notice ********************
The information contained in this e-mail message (including any
attachments) may be confidential, proprietary, privileged, or otherwise
exempt from disclosure under applicable laws. It is intended to be
conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). Any use, dissemination,
distribution, printing, retaining or copying of this e-mail (including its
attachments) by unintended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may
be unlawful. If you are not an intended recipient of this e-mail, or believe
that you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender
immediately (by replying to this e-mail), delete any and all copies of
this e-mail (including any attachments) from your system, and do not
disclose the content of this e-mail to any other person. Thank you!
_______________________________________________
Quagga-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
