From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Apr 29 20:25:57 2008 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 56BCE106566B for ; Tue, 29 Apr 2008 20:25:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bms@FreeBSD.org) Received: from out4.smtp.messagingengine.com (out4.smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B74A8FC0A for ; Tue, 29 Apr 2008 20:25:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bms@FreeBSD.org) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.internal [10.202.2.41]) by out1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FA0C104B54; Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:25:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from heartbeat1.messagingengine.com ([10.202.2.160]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:25:56 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: rtOlRymV6ANotoC2zIJz8OFcaeCASGJulCOqR9RYlCPS 1209500756 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 ESMTPSA id B9FF66A27; Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:25:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <48178452.4050700@FreeBSD.org> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 21:25:54 +0100 From: "Bruce M. Simpson" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080423) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Julian Elischer References: <20080429185100.57C2445010@ptavv.es.net> <4817743B.6090107@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <4817743B.6090107@elischer.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: FreeBSD Net , Kevin Oberman Subject: Re: multiple routing tables review patch ready for simple testing. 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, 29 Apr 2008 20:25:57 -0000 Julian Elischer wrote: >> >> A general purpose OS is a different beast as it has no physical >> equivalent of the FIB. It may have multiple routing tables, though, to >> I think setrib would be a term less likely to cause confusion then >> setfib even though, in the case of your FreeBSD patches, it's really >> both. > If we need to change the terminology now is the time.. > I asked for comments on terminology before and this is what we > came up with.. but once it gets committed.... it gets set in stone. The kernel forwarding table is not a RIB. In the past some apps have tried to use it as one. They really shouldn't do that. There are implementation constraints on the inter-process communication involved (PRC_ATOMIC, etc) which make it inherently unsuitable as a place for routing daemons to exchange routes, particularly when the system is under load, or running near load limits, as would be the case with a tightly engineered embedded system. I understand folk went down that road in the past, as a means to get something up and running quickly as a working demo, or as a hangover from the days when they were the only tools around, but it isn't the way to build a comms infrastructure. These days general purpose OSes are getting closer to specialised comms equipment in terms of what they can do, but more importantly, so are people's expectations of them -- and thus people's concern about whether or not it works tends to follow. cheers BMS