Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:19:14 -0700
From:      Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>
To:        Paul <paul@gtcomm.net>
Cc:        FreeBSD Net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>, "Wilkinson, Alex" <alex.wilkinson@dsto.defence.gov.au>
Subject:   Re: Multiple routing tables in action...
Message-ID:  <481766A2.7040809@elischer.org>
In-Reply-To: <48175B91.1010202@gtcomm.net>
References:  <48134DDE.9010306@elischer.org>	<20080429084032.GW71371@stlux503.dsto.defence.gov.au> <48175793.30606@elischer.org> <48175B91.1010202@gtcomm.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Paul wrote:
> I've been waiting for something like this.  Linux has done policy 
> routing for many many years and is very good at it.  I prefer to use 
> FreeBSD for routing though and this is a feature I have been waiting for :)
> Mainly to use with BGP , having multiple BGP routing tables.   I would 
> like it to be similar to Cisco's VRF or Juniper's routing instance, but 
> maybe that's asking too much.  We use it on our hardware routers for 
> implementations such as having multiple bgp route tables and having 
> customer bandwidth pricing change based on which routing table their 
> traffic gets , say.. value customers, premium customers, customers who 
> want only certain carriers in their bandwidth mix, etc.   Would be fun 
> to have support for FBSD with quagga/openbgpd etc.. and be able to use 
> dscp for marking or any other policy based rule (source ip for instance).
> 
> Thanks Julian.. This is a step forward in the right direction :)

The interaction with routing daemons is something I don't know
enough about. I need someone who knows routing daemons to tell
how to correctly tweek code that sends routing events.

I think it is possible that events from a particular FIB should only 
be reported to routing sockets that are associated with that FIB.
but I'm not sure about this.

This would mean running a separate instance of the routing daemon for
each FIB (VRF?).  Does this sound right to people?


> 
> 
> Julian Elischer wrote:
>> Wilkinson, Alex wrote:
>>>     0n Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 08:44:30AM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
>>>     >A little progress report
>>>     >From a recently installed (6.3) machine.... (plus patches)
>>>
>>> Ok, being ignorant to this, possibly a silly question:
>>>
>>>   Why would i want or need multiple routing tables ?
>>
>> any time you wnat to base a route upon something other than just
>> the destination address.  It's basically called "Policy based
>> routing".
>>
>>
>> Trivial examples:
>> You have two ISPs and you want to send all SMTP via one link and
>> all other traffic via the other.
>>
>> You have 3 ISPs and want all traffic from the accounting department
>> to go via a particular path (that is encrypted) but regular office
>> chatter to go via another.
>>
>> I have other more complex examples in my work.
>>
>> I'm sure others have more solid examples as well.
>>
>> google for policy routing.
>> _______________________________________________
>> freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
>>




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?481766A2.7040809>