Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 23:41:18 -0700 From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Ray Mihm <ray.mihm@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Milan Obuch <net@dino.sk> Subject: Re: vrf support in FreeBSD Message-ID: <44618B0E.2050506@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <1aa142960605092249q21cededfq3cdcbd717f5f569f@mail.gmail.com> 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> <1aa142960605092249q21cededfq3cdcbd717f5f569f@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ray Mihm wrote: > 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. They WILL be modules. At least we'd LIKE them to become modules. Hopefully eventually almost everything will be a module. > > 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 use >> 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?44618B0E.2050506>