Hello, I have gone out on the internet for days looking at a bunch of different radix tree implementations to see if I could figure a way to implement my own tree, just to work around the really low 255 CIDR block limitation in librte_lpm. Unfortunately every single one I could find falls into one of these two annoying categories:
1) bloated with a lot of irrelevant kernel code I don't care about (especially the Linux version but also the BSD one, which also makes a weird assumption every address object stores its length in byte 0 of the address struct). These are hard to convert into something that plays nice with raw packet data. 2) very seemingly simple code, which breaks horribly if you try to add IPv6 support (such as the radix tree from University of Michigan / LLVM compiler benchmark suite, and the one from the old unmaintained mrt daemon, which includes a bizarre custom reference-counted memory manager that is very convoluted). These are easy to set up, but cause a lot of weird segfaults which I am having a difficult time to try to debug. So it seems like I am going nowhere with this approach. Instead, I'd like to know, what would I need to do to add this support to my local copy of librte_lpm? Let's assume for the sake of this discussion, that I don't care one iota about any performance cost, and I am happy if I need to prefetch two cachelines instead of just one (which I recall from a past thread is why librte_lpm has such a low nexthop limit to start with). Failing that, does anybody have a known good userspace version of any of these sort of items: 1) Hash Based FIB (forwarding information base), 2) Tree Based FIB, 3) Patricia trie (which does not break horribly on IPv6 or make bad assumptions about data format besides uint8_t* and length), 4) Crit-Bit tree 5) any other good way of taking IPv4 and IPv6 and finding the longest prefix match against a table of pre-loaded CIDR blocks? I am really pulling out my hair trying to find a way to do something which doesn't seem like it should have to be be this difficult. I must be missing a more obvious way to handle this. Thanks, Matthew
