On 5/27/2015 3:49 AM, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
Le 27/05/2015 03:26, Xiaorong (Andrew) Qu a écrit :
Hi Jafar,
Either way of merging should work.
As for terminology, using your example" VRF 3 table 2" is not ideal
to me.
I would like "netns 3|blue table 2" as netns is the
keyword for namespace anyway.
That is right, what I am working on is to support
netns [3|blue] table 2
netns [3|blue] table 3
netns [2|red] table 1
In my mind, VRF is for any table within each NS (namespace).
I don't have a strong opinion on this, but I would say that quagga can
run on
OS != linux and netns is a linux construction.
With our series, it's possible to implement another OS layer to use
the 'VRF'
feature: there is a split between the OS (linux only in our series) layer
(which uses netns) and the core code.
I also don't have a strong opinion on naming, but I agree with Nicolas
that netns is
just implementation details. On Linux, network namespaces provides an
easy way for
virtulization and isolation which is what VRF is about. When I suggested
the command
VRF 3 table 2
I was mainly concerned about terminology. How do we use the word VRF? to
refer to
one independent routing table? or a collection of related routing
tables? I thought the later
captures the more general case. On some X or Y OS you can still do this
even if you don't have
network namespaces. You can still define multiple VRFs and within each
one create multiple
routing tables. Each VRF serves a customer for example.
Cheers,
Jafar
_______________________________________________
Quagga-dev mailing list
Quagga-dev@lists.quagga.net
https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
