Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2024 02:22:37 +0000 From: Jamie Landeg-Jones <jamie@catflap.org> To: markj@FreeBSD.org, bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: per-FIB socket binding Message-ID: <202412220222.4BM2MboS055636@donotpassgo.dyslexicfish.net> 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
"Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net> wrote: > 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). I hope that is a joke! FIBs are a must have for certain routing environments, and forcing them into a VNET jail would add to overheads, and not even work for applications that work with 2 or more FIBs in the same instance!
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?202412220222.4BM2MboS055636>