Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 01:18:16 +0100 From: Marko Zec <zec@imunes.net> To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: bikeshed for all! Message-ID: <200712140118.16407.zec@imunes.net> In-Reply-To: <4761B9CC.1020008@elischer.org> References: <476061FD.8050500@elischer.org> <20071213221607.Q81630@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> <4761B9CC.1020008@elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday 14 December 2007 00:01:32 Julian Elischer wrote: > > I'd suggest to go with any kind of spelling of 'fibid', 'fib_id', > > 'FIBid', or ... as that's what it is called these days. > > inside the kernel I'll be sticking with the rt_ prefix > to reduce confusion. I think I'll go with the tableid name used in > openBSD for compat reasons, and its succinct. > > however in the user visible portion I'm still lookig for a name for > the utility.. (similar to nice, jail, chroot) > > looking for something that flows off the fingers nicely.. > > fib 1 ping 1.1.1.1 > > might work for me > # > # fib 1 sysctl net.my_fib > 1 > # > # > > > since I've never heard of it before I don't know how standard FIB is? > > setfib 1 (mumble) > > I think the contenders are: > > > Base short version utility name > ================================================================== > instance (ala Juniper) inst? rtinst rtinst > vrf (ala cisco) vrf, setvrf > fib ala someone else fib, setfib I think with vrf / instance (Cisco / Juniper) concepts it is assumed that local interface addressing in each vrf is completely independent, whereas in your framework each local interface, regardles to which rt_table instance it belongs, must have a unique local IP address. So you have my vote against (mis)using the terms vrf, instance, and perhaps even against fib. table / rtable / rttable / tableid etc. sound like much better bikeshed colors to me... Marko > and a late contender: > > routes 1 ping 1.1.1.1 > (note plural)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200712140118.16407.zec>