From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 10 07:26:22 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBF3216A401 for ; Wed, 10 May 2006 07:26:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from net@dino.sk) Received: from mail.netlab.sk (mail.netlab.sk [213.215.72.51]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4731943D48 for ; Wed, 10 May 2006 07:26:21 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from net@dino.sk) Received: from work.dino.sk (home.dino.sk [213.215.74.194]) (AUTH: PLAIN milan@netlab.sk, TLS: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,AES256-SHA) by mail.netlab.sk with esmtp; Wed, 10 May 2006 09:30:58 +0200 id 00289C12.446196B2.00002AE8 From: Milan Obuch To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 09:26:15 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 References: <5EB31780BD297F46812C8F495FA08F620438CAE3@electron.jnpr.net> <1aa142960605091500q6aca79d8l8eb2cdd0ff82ffe3@mail.gmail.com> <446122CE.7010805@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <446122CE.7010805@elischer.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200605100926.16146.net@dino.sk> Subject: Re: vrf support in FreeBSD 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: Wed, 10 May 2006 07:26:22 -0000 On Wednesday 10 May 2006 01:16, Julian Elischer 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. > Could we eventually add a per-process routing table tag inherited by child? Suggested earlier in this thread, it looks like not that hard to be done temporary solution. With some simple management utility (change routing tag, show routing tag for a given process) it could serve many useful purposes. I do like ipfw solution as well, but this one is conceptually much simpler, at least in my somewhat biased and vimage-influenced eyes. Regards, Milan -- Please reply to maling list only. I read it regularly.