From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Dichtel Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 0/6] Proposal for VRF-lite - v2 Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2015 17:40:55 +0200 Message-ID: <559AA187.6000007@6wind.com> References: <1436195001-4818-1-git-send-email-dsa@cumulusnetworks.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: shm@cumulusnetworks.com, roopa@cumulusnetworks.com, gospo@cumulusnetworks.com, jtoppins@cumulusnetworks.com, nikolay@cumulusnetworks.com, ddutt@cumulusnetworks.com, hannes@stressinduktion.org, stephen@networkplumber.org, hadi@mojatatu.com, ebiederm@xmission.com, davem@davemloft.net To: David Ahern , netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from mail-wi0-f178.google.com ([209.85.212.178]:36494 "EHLO mail-wi0-f178.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753686AbbGFPk6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Jul 2015 11:40:58 -0400 Received: by widjy10 with SMTP id jy10so164609949wid.1 for ; Mon, 06 Jul 2015 08:40:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1436195001-4818-1-git-send-email-dsa@cumulusnetworks.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Le 06/07/2015 17:03, David Ahern a =C3=A9crit : > In the context of internet scale routing a requirement that always > comes up is the need to partition the available routing tables into > disjoint routing planes. A specific use case is the multi-tenancy > problem where each tenant has their own unique routing tables and in > the very least need different default gateways. > > This is an attempt to build the ability to create virtual router > domains aka VRF's (VRF-lite to be specific) in the linux packet > forwarding stack. The main observation is that through the use of > rules and socket binding to interfaces, all the facilities that we > need are already present in the infrastructure. What is missing is a > handle that identifies a routing domain and can be used to gather > applicable rules/tables and uniqify neighbor selection. The scheme > used needs to preserves the notions of ECMP, and general routing > principles. [snip] > drivers/net/vrf.c | 486 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++= +++++++++++ [snip] I'm still opposed to name this 'vrf', see the v1 thread: - http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg332357.html - http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg332376.html Shrijeet seemed to agree to rename it, is there a problem? Regards, Nicolas