Date: Sat, 10 May 2008 07:54:03 +0100 From: "Bruce M. Simpson" <bms@FreeBSD.org> To: Zaphod Beeblebrox <zbeeble@gmail.com> Cc: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, FreeBSD Current <current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Multiple routing table support commited Message-ID: <4825468B.3050307@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <5f67a8c40805092057y166d549x2dc2fe397f016c79@mail.gmail.com> References: <4824F1B4.6010302@elischer.org> <5f67a8c40805092057y166d549x2dc2fe397f016c79@mail.gmail.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote: > On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 8:52 PM, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> wrote: > > >> I have committed the base of teh Multi-routing-table support. >> I am current;y waiting for it to loop back to me before a final >> make universe test, but I think it should be ok. >> if you do nothing you should not see any difference. >> >> for a description of what and how, look at: >> >> >> http://perforce.freebsd.org/fileViewer.cgi?FSPC=//depot/user/julian/routing/plan.txt >> > > > >From my read of your file, this doesn't address FreeBSD's utter lack of what > they often call an RIB --- where routes are chosen to be put into the FIB. > Zebra does this to some extent, but there is one glaring case where zebra > cannot fix the problem and FreeBSD's actions need be improved. > Please read the history of this thread, as there has been extensive discussion on this subject. FreeBSD doesn't need to have a RIB, that's a job for routing control plane software such as XORP and Quagga/Zebra. There are strong arguments against using the kernel forwarding tables as an exchange medium, the strongest one being "that's not what it's for". Thanks. BMShome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4825468B.3050307>