ip(8) in base
I want to introduce ip(8) or something similar in base. Basically, I need some userland tool to explicitly operates on nexthops, nexthop groups and fib lookup algorithms. The existing tools are not well suited for the job: route(8) may be a candidate, but (a) it would either add another bunch of options or drastically change the tool by introducing [route nhop add], [route nhgroup add] and (b) listing is traditionally done by netstat(8). I feel like there is a need of some cli tool that provides the ability to easily extend it by having separate namespaces for each sub-command (hello, ifconfig). Naming is hard. I can, for example, use "rt" as a name to address my use cases. However, given the kernel interfaces for managing nexthops/nexhop groups are the same as with routes/arp/ndp, why not spending some additional time and support operating on routes and neighbors and name it ip? Though, that arises multiple questions. Are we comfortable with ip(8) as a name in general? If we are, what’s our take on having the compatible interface with Linux ip(8)? Any comments/feedback is welcome :-) Appendix List of commands I need implemented cmd [-46m] nhop create [gw XX] [iface YYY] [mtu YYY] [reject] [proxyfib Y] [fib X][ipv4] [ipv6] cmd [-46m] nhop delete nhop_id cmd -46m nhop list cmd -j nhop list # json cmd -46m nhgroup create nhops 1,2,3,4,5,6 [fib X] cmd -46 nhgroup create nhops 1=100,2=100,3=200,4=100 [proxyfib Y][fib X] cmd -46 nhroup list cmd -46 nhgroup delete nhgroup_id cmd -46 fib algo list cmd -46 fib algo set algo dpdk_lpm6 fib 0 cmd -46 fib algo set algo auto fib 0 /Alexander ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ip(8) in base
If you are not going to be compatible, use a different name. I don't have good ideas, but something in the lines of "netctl" or similar should do the trick. On 8/16/20, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote: > I want to introduce ip(8) or something similar in base. > Basically, I need some userland tool to explicitly operates on nexthops, > nexthop groups and fib lookup algorithms. > > The existing tools are not well suited for the job: route(8) may be a > candidate, but (a) it would either add another bunch of options or > drastically change the tool by introducing [route nhop add], [route nhgroup > add] and (b) listing is traditionally done by netstat(8). > > I feel like there is a need of some cli tool that provides the ability to > easily extend it by having separate namespaces for each sub-command (hello, > ifconfig). > > Naming is hard. I can, for example, use "rt" as a name to address my use > cases. > However, given the kernel interfaces for managing nexthops/nexhop groups are > the same as with routes/arp/ndp, why not spending some additional time and > support operating on routes and neighbors and name it ip? > > Though, that arises multiple questions. > Are we comfortable with ip(8) as a name in general? > If we are, what’s our take on having the compatible interface with Linux > ip(8)? > > Any comments/feedback is welcome :-) > > > Appendix > List of commands I need implemented > > cmd [-46m] nhop create [gw XX] [iface YYY] [mtu YYY] [reject] [proxyfib Y] > [fib X][ipv4] [ipv6] > cmd [-46m] nhop delete nhop_id > cmd -46m nhop list > cmd -j nhop list # json > > cmd -46m nhgroup create nhops 1,2,3,4,5,6 [fib X] > cmd -46 nhgroup create nhops 1=100,2=100,3=200,4=100 [proxyfib Y][fib X] > cmd -46 nhroup list > cmd -46 nhgroup delete nhgroup_id > > cmd -46 fib algo list > cmd -46 fib algo set algo dpdk_lpm6 fib 0 > cmd -46 fib algo set algo auto fib 0 > > > /Alexander > ___ > freebsd-hack...@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" > -- Mateusz Guzik ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ip(8) in base
On Sun, Aug 16, 2020 at 11:11 AM Alexander V. Chernikov wrote: > I want to introduce ip(8) or something similar in base. > Basically, I need some userland tool to explicitly operates on nexthops, > nexthop groups and fib lookup algorithms. > > The existing tools are not well suited for the job: route(8) may be a > candidate, but (a) it would either add another bunch of options or > drastically change the tool by introducing [route nhop add], [route nhgroup > add] and (b) listing is traditionally done by netstat(8). > > I feel like there is a need of some cli tool that provides the ability to > easily extend it by having separate namespaces for each sub-command (hello, > ifconfig). > > Naming is hard. I can, for example, use "rt" as a name to address my use > cases. > However, given the kernel interfaces for managing nexthops/nexhop groups > are the same as with routes/arp/ndp, why not spending some additional time > and support operating on routes and neighbors and name it ip? > > Though, that arises multiple questions. > Are we comfortable with ip(8) as a name in general? > If we are, what’s our take on having the compatible interface with Linux > ip(8)? > > Any comments/feedback is welcome :-) > > > Appendix > List of commands I need implemented > > cmd [-46m] nhop create [gw XX] [iface YYY] [mtu YYY] [reject] [proxyfib Y] > [fib X][ipv4] [ipv6] > cmd [-46m] nhop delete nhop_id > cmd -46m nhop list > cmd -j nhop list # json > > cmd -46m nhgroup create nhops 1,2,3,4,5,6 [fib X] > cmd -46 nhgroup create nhops 1=100,2=100,3=200,4=100 [proxyfib Y][fib X] > cmd -46 nhroup list > cmd -46 nhgroup delete nhgroup_id > > cmd -46 fib algo list > cmd -46 fib algo set algo dpdk_lpm6 fib 0 > cmd -46 fib algo set algo auto fib 0 > > > /Alexander > > Seems like a good cli util to have. I personally don't like the name ip, to generic, and conflict with ip in linux. I think a somewhat more appropriate name would be ipctl. One might also look to naming and perhaps functionality like opensolaris had, with dladm, ipadm and so on. Best regards Andreas ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ip(8) in base
From a consumer view I think we should be conservative and not add any additional commands that operates in an area where there already exists well known commands. Not sure i understand what new features you are contributing, but the sound of it i guess it has to do with IP routing and fib’s. If this is the case i would like to see this introduced in to route(8) and netstat(1) /Peter > 16 aug. 2020 kl. 11:11 skrev Alexander V. Chernikov : > > I want to introduce ip(8) or something similar in base. > Basically, I need some userland tool to explicitly operates on nexthops, > nexthop groups and fib lookup algorithms. > > The existing tools are not well suited for the job: route(8) may be a > candidate, but (a) it would either add another bunch of options or > drastically change the tool by introducing [route nhop add], [route nhgroup > add] and (b) listing is traditionally done by netstat(8). > > I feel like there is a need of some cli tool that provides the ability to > easily extend it by having separate namespaces for each sub-command (hello, > ifconfig). > > Naming is hard. I can, for example, use "rt" as a name to address my use > cases. > However, given the kernel interfaces for managing nexthops/nexhop groups are > the same as with routes/arp/ndp, why not spending some additional time and > support operating on routes and neighbors and name it ip? > > Though, that arises multiple questions. > Are we comfortable with ip(8) as a name in general? > If we are, what’s our take on having the compatible interface with Linux > ip(8)? > > Any comments/feedback is welcome :-) > > > Appendix > List of commands I need implemented > > cmd [-46m] nhop create [gw XX] [iface YYY] [mtu YYY] [reject] [proxyfib Y] > [fib X][ipv4] [ipv6] > cmd [-46m] nhop delete nhop_id > cmd -46m nhop list > cmd -j nhop list # json > > cmd -46m nhgroup create nhops 1,2,3,4,5,6 [fib X] > cmd -46 nhgroup create nhops 1=100,2=100,3=200,4=100 [proxyfib Y][fib X] > cmd -46 nhroup list > cmd -46 nhgroup delete nhgroup_id > > cmd -46 fib algo list > cmd -46 fib algo set algo dpdk_lpm6 fib 0 > cmd -46 fib algo set algo auto fib 0 > > > /Alexander > ___ > freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ip(8) in base
> From: "Alexander V. Chernikov" > To: net , freebsd-hackers > Subject: ip(8) in base > Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2020 10:11:11 +0100 > I want to introduce ip(8) or something similar in base. > Basically, I need some userland tool to explicitly operates on nexthops, > nexthop groups and fib lookup algorithms. > The existing tools are not well suited for the job: route(8) may be a > candidate, but (a) it would either add another bunch of options or > drastically change the tool by introducing [route nhop add], [route nhgroup > add] and (b) listing is traditionally done by netstat(8). I agree with the others who said not to use ip(8) if the tool is not compatible with the Linux ip. Also, routing is (at least in theory) independent of address family, and that makes the name "ip" too specific. However, I think that route and netstat are sufficiently extensible to add additional facilities, as they have been so far. One suggestion, though, would be to preserve the general strategy of using "route verb ...", e.g. "route add nhop ..." rather than "route nhop add ...". These seem sufficiently similar to existing functionality to share a tool. Similarly, if possible I would prefer to see --libxo json rather than -j. Mike > I feel like there is a need of some cli tool that provides the ability to > easily extend it by having separate namespaces for each sub-command (hello, > ifconfig). > Naming is hard. I can, for example, use "rt" as a name to address my use > cases. > However, given the kernel interfaces for managing nexthops/nexhop groups are > the same as with routes/arp/ndp, why not spending some additional time and > support operating on routes and neighbors and name it ip? > Though, that arises multiple questions. > Are we comfortable with ip(8) as a name in general? > If we are, what's our take on having the compatible interface with Linux > ip(8)? > Any comments/feedback is welcome :-) > Appendix > List of commands I need implemented > cmd [-46m] nhop create [gw XX] [iface YYY] [mtu YYY] [reject] [proxyfib Y] > [fib X][ipv4] [ipv6] > cmd [-46m] nhop delete nhop_id > cmd -46m nhop list > cmd -j nhop list # json > cmd -46m nhgroup create nhops 1,2,3,4,5,6 [fib X] > cmd -46 nhgroup create nhops 1=100,2=100,3=200,4=100 [proxyfib Y][fib X] > cmd -46 nhroup list > cmd -46 nhgroup delete nhgroup_id > cmd -46 fib algo list > cmd -46 fib algo set algo dpdk_lpm6 fib 0 > cmd -46 fib algo set algo auto fib 0 > /Alexander > ___ > freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ip(8) in base
I completely agree with Mateus, if this isn't going to be the same as Linux's iproute2's `ip`, it should have a different name. Too similar in purpose and could be very confusing for many people. Other than that, sounds good with me. -Teran ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ip(8) in base
> > From: "Alexander V. Chernikov" > > To: net , freebsd-hackers > > Subject: ip(8) in base > > Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2020 10:11:11 +0100 > > > I want to introduce ip(8) or something similar in base. > > Basically, I need some userland tool to explicitly operates on nexthops, > > nexthop groups and fib lookup algorithms. > > > The existing tools are not well suited for the job: route(8) may be a > > candidate, but (a) it would either add another bunch of options or > > drastically change the tool by introducing [route nhop add], [route nhgroup > > add] and (b) listing is traditionally done by netstat(8). > > I agree with the others who said not to use ip(8) if the tool is not > compatible with the Linux ip. Also, routing is (at least in theory) > independent of address family, and that makes the name "ip" too specific. I strongly agree with this. > However, I think that route and netstat are sufficiently extensible to > add additional facilities, as they have been so far. One suggestion, > though, would be to preserve the general strategy of using "route verb ...", > e.g. "route add nhop ..." rather than "route nhop add ...". These seem > sufficiently similar to existing functionality to share a tool. Again, I agree with the above statement by Mike. The proposed commands are all in support of "route" features, and in BSD it is the route command that is used to maniplate these, please do not deviate from that. I have seen no strong reason given that route(8) and netstat(1) can not be extended to add the desired functionality. > Similarly, if possible I would prefer to see --libxo json rather than -j. I have no skin in this one, other than to state that iirc the route(8) command is currently without any long options so adding this --libxo would require adding long option support, which is probably not justifiable for 1 option. > Mike > > > I feel like there is a need of some cli tool that provides the ability to > > easily extend it by having separate namespaces for each sub-command (hello, > > ifconfig). > > > Naming is hard. I can, for example, use "rt" as a name to address my use > > cases. > > However, given the kernel interfaces for managing nexthops/nexhop groups > > are the same as with routes/arp/ndp, why not spending some additional time > > and support operating on routes and neighbors and name it ip? > > > Though, that arises multiple questions. > > Are we comfortable with ip(8) as a name in general? > > If we are, what's our take on having the compatible interface with Linux > > ip(8)? > > > Any comments/feedback is welcome :-) > > > > Appendix > > List of commands I need implemented > > > cmd [-46m] nhop create [gw XX] [iface YYY] [mtu YYY] [reject] [proxyfib Y] > > [fib X][ipv4] [ipv6] > > cmd [-46m] nhop delete nhop_id > > cmd -46m nhop list > > cmd -j nhop list # json What is special about these nhop routes that this is not just a route add? Could that not be handled as either a route flag ala -iface/-static/-reject/-blackhole or via a route modifier ala -osi/-xns/-inet/-inet6? I am actually a bit confused in that all routes are really just an expression of the "next hop" as far as the kernel goes, or are we now doing lsdb type routing in the kernel? > > > cmd -46m nhgroup create nhops 1,2,3,4,5,6 [fib X] > > cmd -46 nhgroup create nhops 1=100,2=100,3=200,4=100 [proxyfib Y][fib X] > > cmd -46 nhroup list ^ nhgroup? > > cmd -46 nhgroup delete nhgroup_id > > > cmd -46 fib algo list > > cmd -46 fib algo set algo dpdk_lpm6 fib 0 > > cmd -46 fib algo set algo auto fib 0 > > > > /Alexander -- Rod Grimes rgri...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ip(8) in base
> From: "Rodney W. Grimes"
> Subject: Re: ip(8) in base
> Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2020 09:38:47 -0700 (PDT)
> > > From: "Alexander V. Chernikov"
> > > To: net , freebsd-hackers
> > > Subject: ip(8) in base
> > > Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2020 10:11:11 +0100
> >
> > > I want to introduce ip(8) or something similar in base.
> > > Basically, I need some userland tool to explicitly operates on nexthops,
> > > nexthop groups and fib lookup algorithms.
> >
> > > The existing tools are not well suited for the job: route(8) may be a
> > > candidate, but (a) it would either add another bunch of options or
> > > drastically change the tool by introducing [route nhop add], [route
> > > nhgroup add] and (b) listing is traditionally done by netstat(8).
> >
> > I agree with the others who said not to use ip(8) if the tool is not
> > compatible with the Linux ip. Also, routing is (at least in theory)
> > independent of address family, and that makes the name "ip" too specific.
> I strongly agree with this.
> > However, I think that route and netstat are sufficiently extensible to
> > add additional facilities, as they have been so far. One suggestion,
> > though, would be to preserve the general strategy of using "route verb ...",
> > e.g. "route add nhop ..." rather than "route nhop add ...". These seem
> > sufficiently similar to existing functionality to share a tool.
> Again, I agree with the above statement by Mike.
> The proposed commands are all in support of "route" features,
> and in BSD it is the route command that is used to maniplate
> these, please do not deviate from that. I have seen no strong
> reason given that route(8) and netstat(1) can not be extended
> to add the desired functionality.
> > Similarly, if possible I would prefer to see --libxo json rather than -j.
> I have no skin in this one, other than to state that iirc the
> route(8) command is currently without any long options so
> adding this --libxo would require adding long option support,
> which is probably not justifiable for 1 option.
I think the reporting ("list") should be in netstat rather than route,
with the possible exception of enhancements to "route get". Of course,
netstat already uses libxo.
> > > I feel like there is a need of some cli tool that provides the ability to
> > > easily extend it by having separate namespaces for each sub-command
> > > (hello, ifconfig).
> >
> > > Naming is hard. I can, for example, use "rt" as a name to address my use
> > > cases.
> > > However, given the kernel interfaces for managing nexthops/nexhop groups
> > > are the same as with routes/arp/ndp, why not spending some additional
> > > time and support operating on routes and neighbors and name it ip?
> >
> > > Though, that arises multiple questions.
> > > Are we comfortable with ip(8) as a name in general?
> > > If we are, what's our take on having the compatible interface with Linux
> > > ip(8)?
> >
> > > Any comments/feedback is welcome :-)
> >
> >
> > > Appendix
> > > List of commands I need implemented
> >
> > > cmd [-46m] nhop create [gw XX] [iface YYY] [mtu YYY] [reject] [proxyfib
> > > Y] [fib X][ipv4] [ipv6]
> > > cmd [-46m] nhop delete nhop_id
> > > cmd -46m nhop list
> > > cmd -j nhop list # json
> What is special about these nhop routes that this is not just a route add?
> Could that not be handled as either a route flag ala
> -iface/-static/-reject/-blackhole
> or via a route modifier ala -osi/-xns/-inet/-inet6?
> I am actually a bit confused in that all routes are really just an expression
> of the "next hop" as far as the kernel goes, or are we now doing lsdb type
> routing in the kernel?
> >
> > > cmd -46m nhgroup create nhops 1,2,3,4,5,6 [fib X]
> > > cmd -46 nhgroup create nhops 1=100,2=100,3=200,4=100 [proxyfib Y][fib X]
> > > cmd -46 nhroup list
> ^ nhgroup?
> > > cmd -46 nhgroup delete nhgroup_id
> >
> > > cmd -46 fib algo list
> > > cmd -46 fib algo set algo dpdk_lpm6 fib 0
> > > cmd -46 fib algo set algo auto fib 0
> >
> >
> > > /Alexander
> --
> Rod Grimes rgri...@freebsd.org
> ___
> freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
