From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 27 08:49:07 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E207416A46C for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2007 08:49:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bms@FreeBSD.org) Received: from out1.smtp.messagingengine.com (out1.smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B790313C461 for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2007 08:49:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bms@FreeBSD.org) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.internal [10.202.2.42]) by out1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1845257AC2; Tue, 27 Nov 2007 03:49:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from heartbeat1.messagingengine.com ([10.202.2.160]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 27 Nov 2007 03:49:07 -0500 X-Sasl-enc: Rs5gQ8611or97CGIDIMhJ+1h1H7IvNJFATfcX/P1JakS 1196153346 Received: from empiric.lon.incunabulum.net (82-35-112-254.cable.ubr07.dals.blueyonder.co.uk [82.35.112.254]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1CC9A35A; Tue, 27 Nov 2007 03:49:06 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <474BDA01.7050505@FreeBSD.org> Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 08:49:05 +0000 From: "Bruce M. Simpson" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20070928) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mosaic References: <910e7ff90711240859h722b6bf8jf294e3622f516fa@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <910e7ff90711240859h722b6bf8jf294e3622f516fa@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: plans for multiple routing tables X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 08:49:08 -0000 mosaic wrote: > I would like to ask, whether there are any plans to implement multiple > route tables, like OpenBSD did: > > http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/openbsd/2006-10/2665.html > Yup, we're aware of these changes. [The feature you're referring to is actually the ability to have multiple choices for next-hops, not multiple routing tables -- that's just how the next-hops might conceptually be presented to the user.] > I'm well aware of fact that i can do policy routing via pf/ipf/ipfw as well of > > http://imunes.tel.fer.hr/virtnet/ > Again, not entirely the same thing. IMUNES is overkill for most people's requirements, and is about more than 'just' the forwarding plane; it is however a novel and interesting way of doing network simulation or virtualization. There are a whole bunch of potential issues with implementing multipath right. I would suggest, for now, that we just import the OpenBSD changes to the existing BSD FIB, as it is a relatively low change in terms of code. I've responded to Julian off-list about his plans as a number of groups and individuals have been looking at this issue. I would like to see this work out OK, but I do not have 'copious free time' in which to do this at the moment -- I gotta earn a living! regards, BMS