Andre Oppermann wrote:
Haven't looked at the multicast code so I can't comment.  The other
stuff is just talk so far.  No work in progress, at least from my side.

Insofaras rmlocks and cache line size vs rtentry size applies to multicast:

I know there are implementations out there which use the unicast BSD routing code to do multicast. This is preferable as the MROUTING implementation in the main tree has a 32 vif limitation. Moving this into the main radix trie code allows us to overcome these limitations.

Recall that a multipath FIB holds multiple next-hops for each route. Multicast routes need the same, but they also need to send traffic to all of the next-hops. This is basically what the MROUTING code does, but it does so completely separately from the unicast forwarding code. The reasons for this are mostly historical -- folks wanted to develop it separately from unicast IPv4.

For IETF MANET, ie tactical mobile IP networks, we need to be able to address multicast next-hops by their unicast address -- most of the time we can't reliably use link layer multicast or even IGMP to reach all subscribers, or use PIM shared trees, so flooding is necessary -- as well as being able to disable the existing RPF checks on inbound traffic from MANET interfaces. In situations like this, 32 next-hop

I'm aware this is only marginally related to the DFZ/tier-1 router scenario, but, it's something I want FreeBSD to support as it allows IP networks to be deployed in novel situations i.e. where no existing infrastructure exists, and centralized/hierarchical network infrastructure isn't suitable (think International Rescue).

So it's something to think about for folks doing multipath work -- the same performance constraints which affect struct rtentry *now* for SMP and multipath work will potentially affect multicast forwarding in future.

regards
BMS
_______________________________________________
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Reply via email to