Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2024 13:29:01 +0300 From: "Andrey V. Elsukov" <bu7cher@yandex.ru> To: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net>, Mark Johnston <markj@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: per-FIB socket binding Message-ID: <c396786f-3663-4283-92c3-165b17e77246@yandex.ru> In-Reply-To: <4p5o59s4-5p70-0775-1479-990o1s5po7r2@yvfgf.mnoonqbm.arg> References: <Z2G_q5s35AremgYc@nuc> <4p5o59s4-5p70-0775-1479-990o1s5po7r2@yvfgf.mnoonqbm.arg>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 21.12.2024 19:34, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: > How much use are FIBs still these days? Half of the original use cases > I can think of could easily and better be overcome by using vnet jails > with a physical or virtual interface (e.g, vcc) being delegated to the > vnet. > > I wonder if anyone on FreeBSD is using FIBs to actually have multi-FIB > forwardig but that very little touches your use case apart from the mgmt > which again can be factored out better (or inversely, factoring out the > forwarding). > > I would honestly know who and how FIBs are still in use today or if they > should be put on a list to be removed for 16 (I assume I might be > surprised). > > That all said with your opt-in approach if the code itself doesn't bring > too many new complications I'd be happy with it (assuming FIBs still > have a use case). Some might say that VNET is useless and should be removed instead. We have bhyve and old-style jails. Without VNET the kernel code will be robust and simple again, and easy for debugging. But 1st April is not yet, and someone will say nothing. FIBs are useful as is, but also can be used with "ipfw setfib" that make it irreplaceable. -- WBR, Andrey V. Elsukov
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?c396786f-3663-4283-92c3-165b17e77246>