On 06/10/15 at 01:43pm, Shrijeet Mukherjee wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 3:15 AM, Thomas Graf wrote:
> > Do I understand this correctly that swp* represent veth pairs?
> > Why do you have distinct addresses on each peer of the pair?
> > Are the addresses in N2 and N3 considered private and NATed
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 7:55 AM, Nicolas Dichtel
wrote:
> Le 09/06/2015 16:21, David Ahern a écrit :
>>
>> Hi Nicolas:
>>
>> On 6/9/15 2:58 AM, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm not really in favor of the name 'vrf'. This term is very
>>> controversial and
>>> having a consensus of what is/contain
Le 09/06/2015 16:21, David Ahern a écrit :
Hi Nicolas:
On 6/9/15 2:58 AM, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
I'm not really in favor of the name 'vrf'. This term is very
controversial and
having a consensus of what is/contains a 'vrf' is quite impossible.
There was already a lot of discussions about this t
Hi Nicolas:
On 6/9/15 2:58 AM, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
I'm not really in favor of the name 'vrf'. This term is very
controversial and
having a consensus of what is/contains a 'vrf' is quite impossible.
There was already a lot of discussions about this topic on quagga ml
that show
that everybody h
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015, at 14:30, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
> Le 09/06/2015 12:15, Thomas Graf a écrit :
> > On 06/08/15 at 11:35am, Shrijeet Mukherjee wrote:
> > [...]
> >> model with some performance paths that need optimization. (Specifically
> >> the output route selector that Roopa, Robert, Thomas a
Le 09/06/2015 12:15, Thomas Graf a écrit :
On 06/08/15 at 11:35am, Shrijeet Mukherjee wrote:
[...]
model with some performance paths that need optimization. (Specifically
the output route selector that Roopa, Robert, Thomas and EricB are
currently discussing on the MPLS thread)
Thanks for post
On 06/08/15 at 11:35am, Shrijeet Mukherjee wrote:
[...]
> model with some performance paths that need optimization. (Specifically
> the output route selector that Roopa, Robert, Thomas and EricB are
> currently discussing on the MPLS thread)
Thanks for posting these patches just in time. This expl
Le 08/06/2015 20:35, Shrijeet Mukherjee a écrit :
From: Shrijeet Mukherjee
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
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015, at 21:13, David Ahern wrote:
> On 6/8/15 12:35 PM, Shrijeet Mukherjee wrote:
> > 5. Debugging is built-in as tcpdump and counters on the VRF device
> > works as is.
>
> Is the intent that something like this
>
>tcpdump -i vrf0
>
> can be used to see vrf traffic?
>
>
Good catch, as you know I used to have the device getting modified in
the RX path and that made it all work
generic ip_rcv will need a fix to make RX visible to tcpdump, but yes,
that is the goal.
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 12:13 PM, David Ahern wrote:
> On 6/8/15 12:35 PM, Shrijeet Mukherjee wrote:
On 6/8/15 12:35 PM, Shrijeet Mukherjee wrote:
5. Debugging is built-in as tcpdump and counters on the VRF device
works as is.
Is the intent that something like this
tcpdump -i vrf0
can be used to see vrf traffic?
vrf_handle_frame only bumps counters; it does not switch skb->dev to the
From: Shrijeet Mukherjee
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
th
12 matches
Mail list logo
