Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 22:41:04 +0100 From: Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> To: Vadim Goncharov <vadim_nuclight@mail.ru> Cc: Qing Li <qingli@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>, arch@freebsd.org, Ivo Vachkov <ivo.vachkov@gmail.com>, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, "Bruce M. Simpson" <bms@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: resend: multiple routing table roadmap (format fix) Message-ID: <47814AF0.9070509@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <opt4i0rlz317d6mn@nuclight.avtf.net> References: <4772F123.5030303@elischer.org> <f85d6aa70712261728h331eadb8p205d350dc7fb7f4c@mail.gmail.com> <477416CC.4090906@elischer.org> <opt4c0imk24fjv08@nuclight.avtf.net> <477D2EF3.2060909@elischer.org> <opt4g4kcis17d6mn@nuclight.avtf.net> <4780E5E7.2070202@FreeBSD.org> <4781197F.1000105@elischer.org> <opt4i0rlz317d6mn@nuclight.avtf.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Vadim Goncharov wrote: > 07.01.08 @ 00:10 Julian Elischer wrote: > > >>>> Is multicast and multipath routing the same? >>> No. They are currently orthogonal. >>> However it makes sense to merge the multicast and unicast forwarding >>> code as currently MROUTING is limited to a fan-out of 32 next-hops >>> only. In multicast, next-hops are normally just interfaces. >>> Also the IETF MANET ad-hoc IP is going to need hooks there; >>> multicast in MANET needs to address its next-hops by their unicast >>> address, and encapsulate the traffic with a header. This is not true >>> link layer multicast -- although it might use link layer multicast to >>> leverage the hash filters in 802.11 MACs. >>> As regards getting ARP out of forwarding tables, this should have >>> happened a long time ago... >> >> I'm not 100 % convinced of this... >> I was, but I think there may still be a place for a cached arp pointer >> in hte next hop route to the arp entry for that next hop. >> I DO however thing that the arp stuff should nto be accessing its >> data via the routing table. > > Surely, routing table should contain a cached pointer to an entry in L2 > table (ARP in case of Ethernet), to not do double lookups. But still > separate those tables... Locking hell over again. How do you remove an ARP entry without doing a full walk over the entire routing table (some 250K entries for the DFZ)? Make it rmlocks and be done with it. -- Andre
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?47814AF0.9070509>