From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Robert Olsson Subject: Re: suggestion for routing code improvement Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 15:01:03 +0200 Sender: owner-netdev@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <15541.35087.61146.809057@robur.slu.se> References: <15541.29604.537736.704406@robur.slu.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Robert Olsson , Chris Friesen , Return-path: To: Julian Anastasov In-Reply-To: List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Hello! Julian Anastasov writes: > > Well, I now see, it is used in gated. But only in one route table > which is a drawback. gated netlink code came from Alexey. I had to adjust the preference for "static" in gated to get the desired effect. > > More correctly, the settings are more complex than the mentioned > daemons can handle. Sticking with one route table is not enough in most > of the cases. This is the main reason the mentioned patches for static > routes to exist. They are more manageable (with scripts) for setups where > routing protocols are not used. Well we can be happy for the well-designed routing/netlink system Linux got and as you say routing software does not yet fully utilize this. But I think we agree that we shouldn't have kernel to compensate for this. I did some benchmarking/profiling on the routing lookup/cache/garbage collection it seems to be well done too. Having listened to all fuzz about routing lookups at GIGE speeds. :-) Cheers. --ro