Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2024 16:34:25 +0000 (UTC) From: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net> To: Mark Johnston <markj@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: per-FIB socket binding Message-ID: <4p5o59s4-5p70-0775-1479-990o1s5po7r2@yvfgf.mnoonqbm.arg> In-Reply-To: <Z2G_q5s35AremgYc@nuc> References: <Z2G_q5s35AremgYc@nuc>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024, Mark Johnston wrote: > Lately I've been working on adding FIB awareness to bind(2) and inpcb lookup. > Below I'll describe the project a bit. Any feedback/comments/suggestions would > be appreciated. > > Today, a TCP or UDP socket can receive connections or datagrams from any FIB. SCTP? > Any thoughts/comments? How much use are FIBs still these days? Half of the original use cases I can think of could easily and better be overcome by using vnet jails with a physical or virtual interface (e.g, vcc) being delegated to the vnet. I wonder if anyone on FreeBSD is using FIBs to actually have multi-FIB forwardig but that very little touches your use case apart from the mgmt which again can be factored out better (or inversely, factoring out the forwarding). I would honestly know who and how FIBs are still in use today or if they should be put on a list to be removed for 16 (I assume I might be surprised). That all said with your opt-in approach if the code itself doesn't bring too many new complications I'd be happy with it (assuming FIBs still have a use case). /bz -- Bjoern A. Zeeb r15:7
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4p5o59s4-5p70-0775-1479-990o1s5po7r2>