From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Dichtel Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 0/3] Proposal for VRF-lite Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 16:55:38 +0200 Message-ID: <5576FE6A.7000703@6wind.com> References: <5576AAD2.8010405@6wind.com> <5576F652.4090903@gmail.com> Reply-To: nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: roopa@cumulusnetworks.com, gospo@cumulusnetworks.com, jtoppins@cumulusnetworks.com, nikolay@cumulusnetworks.com To: David Ahern , Shrijeet Mukherjee , hannes@stressinduktion.org, ebiederm@xmission.com, hadi@mojatatu.com, davem@davemloft.net, stephen@networkplumber.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from mail-wg0-f42.google.com ([74.125.82.42]:34184 "EHLO mail-wg0-f42.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753059AbbFIOzm (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Jun 2015 10:55:42 -0400 Received: by wgv5 with SMTP id 5so15724166wgv.1 for ; Tue, 09 Jun 2015 07:55:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5576F652.4090903@gmail.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Le 09/06/2015 16:21, David Ahern a =C3=A9crit : > Hi Nicolas: > > On 6/9/15 2:58 AM, Nicolas Dichtel wrote: >> I'm not really in favor of the name 'vrf'. This term is very >> controversial and >> having a consensus of what is/contains a 'vrf' is quite impossible. >> There was already a lot of discussions about this topic on quagga ml >> that show >> that everybody has a different opinion about this term ;-) > > Are you referring to this thread? > https://lists.quagga.net/pipermail/quagga-dev/2014-November/011795.ht= ml No, there were recent discussions on quagga about that subject. Here is= some non-exhaustive pointers: https://lists.quagga.net/pipermail/quagga-dev/2015-May/012581.html https://lists.quagga.net/pipermail/quagga-dev/2015-May/012630.html https://lists.quagga.net/pipermail/quagga-dev/2015-June/012715.html Note the last pointer also explains why it was called MRF by Cumulus. Regards, Nicolas