Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 22:49:27 -0700 From: "Ray Mihm" <ray.mihm@gmail.com> To: "Julian Elischer" <julian@elischer.org> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Milan Obuch <net@dino.sk> Subject: Re: vrf support in FreeBSD Message-ID: <1aa142960605092249q21cededfq3cdcbd717f5f569f@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <446122CE.7010805@elischer.org> References: <5EB31780BD297F46812C8F495FA08F620438CAE3@electron.jnpr.net> <4460D595.8000408@elischer.org> <1aa142960605091325j151df1f6j909ee9ca3ae0ed75@mail.gmail.com> <200605092239.46594.net@dino.sk> <446103AD.5020006@elischer.org> <1aa142960605091500q6aca79d8l8eb2cdd0ff82ffe3@mail.gmail.com> <446122CE.7010805@elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Point taken about the globals but layer 3 (IP) and layer 4 (TCP, UDP, etc) aren't modules yet and that shouldn't be a problem right? I'm not trying to trivialize or solve the problem here. But my point is, these shouldn't be show-stoppers when you consider the benefit of having this feature in FreeBSD. Regards, Ray. On 5/9/06, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> wrote: > Ray Mihm wrote: > > > Using ipfw tables is essentially a non-starter, IMHO. How would > > routing protocols use ipfw based tables, for example? Marko's work > > touches a lot of files, but I don't think it's heavy weight. > > > > I also think using Marko's idea and Jails would allow create the > > notion of a logical system and multiple such logical systems may be > > configured on a single FreeBSD system. > > > > Regards, > > > > Ray. > > Don't get me wrong.. I very much like vimage, and it is a great pitty > that it > (in the form it is in now) > is basically incompatible in concept with freeBSD 5+ (where most things > are modules)(*). > > I've even done some small work on prototyping how one MIGHT be able to > make it happen, but for what I want (just be able to have some packets us= e > an alternative routing table), having ipfw fwd them according to a table > does just fine. > > (*) The problem is that moving all globals to a structure only works if > you know what globals > are linked in. If you load a module, you need to expand the structure. > This is problematic > to say the least. The same problem has been solved with > Thread-local-storage using hooks > in the compiler and linker but I don't think we can do that in the > kernel. (at least not easily). > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1aa142960605092249q21cededfq3cdcbd717f5f569f>