Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 16 Jul 2011 18:22:09 +0200
From:      Vlad Galu <dudu@dudu.ro>
To:        Hiroki Sato <hrs@FreeBSD.org>
Cc:        freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: FIB separation
Message-ID:  <08E81571-34DA-41E2-B06E-3BFC9C046895@dudu.ro>
In-Reply-To: <20110717.004248.48765964696292481.hrs@allbsd.org>
References:  <A718ADB2-EC52-462C-A114-85053F1B2E55@dudu.ro> <20110717.004248.48765964696292481.hrs@allbsd.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

On Jul 16, 2011, at 5:42 PM, Hiroki Sato wrote:

> Vlad Galu <dudu@dudu.ro> wrote
>  in <A718ADB2-EC52-462C-A114-85053F1B2E55@dudu.ro>:
>=20
> du> Hello,
> du>
> du> A couple of years ago, Stef Walter proposed a patch[1] that =
enforced
> du> the scope of routing messages. The general consesus was that the =
best
> du> approach would be the OpenBSD way - transporting the FIB number in =
the
> du> message and letting the user applications filter out unwanted
> du> messages.
> du>
> du> Are there any plans to tackle this before 9.0?
>=20
> I am looking into this and investigating other possible extensions in
> rtsock messages such as addition of a fib member to rt_msghdr.  I am
> not sure it can be done before 9.0, though...
>=20
> -- Hiroki


Thanks! Even if this gets postponed for 10.0, living with a  backport of =
the official
implementation would be easier than maintaining a homegrown solution.

VG




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?08E81571-34DA-41E2-B06E-3BFC9C046895>