From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Hemminger Subject: Re: RFC: Patch to add support for multiple multicast routing tables. Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 22:28:07 -0700 Message-ID: <20080624222807.3a9918d1@speedy> References: <4861966B.5090208@candelatech.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: NetDev To: Ben Greear Return-path: Received: from mail.vyatta.com ([216.93.170.194]:43153 "EHLO mail.vyatta.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751002AbYFYF2W (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jun 2008 01:28:22 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4861966B.5090208@candelatech.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 17:50:51 -0700 Ben Greear wrote: > In order to run multiple Xorp instances and treat different groups of > interfaces as being in their own virtual router, I had to update the > ipv4/ipmr.c logic to support multiple routing tables. > > I will be attempting to push the cooresponding xorp changes to it's > maintainers if this is accepted into the kernel. It should be fully > backwards compatible with existing xorp and other multicast > routing tools. It does change the procfs output slightly, adding > a TableId column. > > The original patch was written by me, and then Patrick McHardy > fixed up my cruft and made it much smaller and with better locking. > I then fixed a few bugs I found while testing with my modified xorp. > > The attached patch is against 2.6.25.4 + hacks. It has a few rejects > against 2.6.26.rc7, > but I will fix those sooner rather than later if the patch is otherwise > deemed > worthy. > > Please let me know if this stands a chance of inclusion. > > Thanks, > Ben Ben private ioctl's make it hard to handle 32bit/64bit compatiablity, and routing is better managed through rtnetlink. Doesn't XORP do netlink?