Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] VRF support in FIB library

Medvedkin, Vladimir
2026-03-23T18:52:58Z

On 3/23/2026 3:27 PM, Morten Brørup wrote:
> Let's take a level up in abstraction, and consider one of the key design goals:
> What are the typical use cases we want VRF support designed for?
>
> I can imagine a use case with one or very few VRFs with a very large (internet) route table, and many VRFs with small (private) route tables.
>
> PS: I have no experience with the DPDK FIB library, so my feedback might be completely off.

No, you completely correct :) In real world scenarios only a few VRFs
will have full view, so I considered that number of VRFs would be small.
For small (private) route tables, it would be good to use either smaller
nexthops (e.g. 2bytes), or some other LPM algorithm that is not so
greedy for memory like DIR24_8.

>
--
Regards,
Vladimir