Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 11:58:22 -0500 From: Randall Stewart <rrs@cisco.com> To: qingli@speakeasy.net Cc: qingli@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Routing in the network :-) Message-ID: <4788F1AE.4030502@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <30834.1199989743@speakeasy.net> References: <30834.1199989743@speakeasy.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Qing Li:
Ok, the branch is created :-)
//depot/user/rrs/alt_route
Please go ahead and pull a copy and add your changes.. unless you
would like me to ressurect my old patches.. (let me know)..
If you put your patches in ping me to tell me they are in .. and then
I will ressurect my old alternate route lookup patch and the changes
to SCTP to use it :-)
Ping me either way
R
Qing Li wrote:
> Interesting you are bringing this up ... I actually sent a similar email to freebsd-net@
> about 2 years ago and had one response back (it was a polite no).
>
> I back ported and integrated the radix_mpath changes from KAME into FreeBSD 5.4
> and the changes are working good right now in production environment. Changes
> were also necessary in quite a few place throughout the netinet/ files, e.g.,
> address initialization functions such as in_ifinit().
>
> I actually discussed what I have done with itojun back in August of 2007.
>
>
>>On Thu Jan 10 6:55 , Randall Stewart sent:
>>
>>Hi all:
>>
>>A number of years ago, Itojun and I had played off and on
>>with some modifications to both the routing table and to a
>>"new" interfaces that could be used by transports to gain
>>routing information.
>>
>>I am contemplating digging back in my archives and building
>>a p4 branch that would have the changes for folks to look at..
>>But before I go to all that trouble I want to have a discussion
>>about this here ;-)
>>
>>This will be a longish email so if you get bored easily or just
>>don't care about routing/networks and all that fun, you have
>>been warned :-)
>>
>>The basic concept:
>>
>>So say I am at home and have purchased two DSL's. One from
>>AT&T (don't you love the new ma-bell) and the other from
>>SpeakEasy (Note I had this until I moved out to the country
>>now I am lucky to have one DSL.. but many can do this if they
>>want)... So my home looked like:
>>
>>
>>IP-A IP-S
>>| |
>>| |
>>| |
>>,__|__________|___
>>| |
>>| |
>>| lakerest.net |
>>| |
>>|_________________|
>>
>>Now life is good, I have some degree of
>>fault tolerance right?
>>
>>So AT&T (IP-A) gives me the default route to IP-A1
>>and Speak Easy gives me the default route to IP-S1.
>>Life is not so good... how do I plumb these in the
>>routing table?
>>
>>I can say
>>
>>route add default IP-A1
>>or
>>route add default IP-S1
>>
>>But I cannot have both. And worse if I had a connection
>>up to FreeBSD.net and AT&T's network went down.. and I
>>happened to have put the first command in.. my network
>>connection would stop...
>>
>>What would be nice if I had a way to add BOTH routes
>>into the kernel.. and when Layer 4 realized there was some
>>major problems going on it could "use" the alternate
>>route (i.e. via IP-S1) and life would once again be
>>good..
>>
>>Ok, yes, the observant person out there will say.. wait
>>IP-S1 will NEVER allow your packets through since they
>>probably do ingress filtering.. yes I am aware of this.. but
>>this would *NOT* hold true for some device in the network
>>talking to some other device in the network.. *OR* for
>>speakeasy.. at least not circa 2004.. since speakeasy
>>did *NOT* do ingress filtering and my way back former
>>employer (AT&T) *DID* do ingress filtering..
>>
>>So the idea is rather simple:
>>
>>1) Allow multiple routes on any level of the kernel
>>patricia trees.
>>
>
>
> This is done.
>
>
>>2) Add an additional interface to the routing code
>>so that a transport protocol could query the
>>routing table for additional support... i.e.
>>excuse me, the route that I had no longer seems
>>to be working, do you have an alternate gateway?
>>
>
>
> There was a inp_route field in the in_pcb{} structure but
> that field was later removed by Andre in 5.5. I never quite
> understood why but I did find that field to be rather useful.
>
> union {
> /* placeholder for routing entry */
> struct route inc4_route;
> #if 1 /* def NEW_STRUCT_ROUTE */
> struct route inc6_route;
> #else
> struct route_in6 inc6_route;
> #endif
> } inc_dependroute;
>
> I used this field for caching and it gets flushed when
> there is a routing table change. Works out good.
>
>
>>Now I admit for TCP these API's would have limited use..
>>
>
>
> That depends ... :-)
>
>
>>but for SCTP these are golden.. since both sides know
>>about all addresses and thus you get a form of true
>>network diversity out of this little software change.
>>
>>
>>Now yes, this does not help you if both your DSL's
>>go out to the same pole outside your house, and a
>>truck hits the pole... but it *DOES* help you if
>>your network provider dies somewhere back in the CO
>>running across your carpet to AT&T's DSL and it thinks
>>chewing on it would be fun :-)
>>
>>So what was required way back in 4.x when Itojun and
>>I did this work.. (note that Itojun called his changes
>>RADIX_MPATH which did NOT include my alternate
>>routing lookup code).
>>
>>a) For radix.c there were just a few simple changes that
>>removed the restriction that prevents duplicate routes
>>at any level of the tree.
>>
>>b) For route.c a new method is added.. this is a bit
>>of code not huge but some.
>>
>
>
> The rtrequest1() function needed a bit of work but not so huge.
>
>
>>c) One thing I added but took back out, was some changes to
>>the "route delete" api... can't remember exactly where.. but
>>basically the delete does not look at the destination ... i.e.
>>with the changes Itojun and I had cooked up if you said:
>>route add default IP-1
>>route add default IP-2
>>route add default IP-3
>>
>>and then when.. opps.. I don't want IP-2, you could NOT
>>say route delete default IP-2.. well you could but it did
>>no good.. it removed the first one (IP-1). I had a fix for
>>this but Itojun thought it was too radical since it changed
>>an interface to one of the routing routines... so we just settled
>>for the fact that if you did that you got to have the pleasure
>>of using:
>>route delete default
>>3 times.. and then starting again...
>>
>
>
> I have been enhancing the code for some time now ...
>
> I can do both route delete and even route modification (I added
> route preferences in addition to ECMP).
>
> I have 7 fundamental test cases to perform on the implementation to ensure
> both correctness and compatibility.
>
>
>>So is it worth my time resurrecting these patches for 8.0? Objections
>>(being in a routing company I know there will be a lot of them..
>>gee the routing system is supposed to do that.. etc etc).
>>
>>Comments would be welcome before I dust off the patches..
>>
>
>
> I would like to get these changes made into 8.0.
>
> If there is enough interest out there, I'd be happy to share my implementation
> and we probabaly can collaborate on this effort if that works for you.
>
> -- Qing
>
>
>
> R
--
Randall Stewart
NSSTG - Cisco Systems Inc.
803-345-0369 <or> 803-317-4952 (cell)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4788F1AE.4030502>