> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:17:15 -0700 > From: Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Kevin Oberman wrote: > >> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 00:44:18 -0700 > >> From: Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> The patch can be found at > >> http://www.freebsd.org/~julian/mrt.diff > >> (or http://www.freebsd.org/~julian/mrt6.diff for RELENG_6) > >> > >> or source can be taken from perforce at: > >> //depot/user/julian/routing/src > >> > >> a kernel needs to be created with the option ROUTETABLES=N > >> > >> e.g. > >> +options ROUTETABLES=2 # max 16. 1 is back > >> compatible. > >> > >> leaving this out will result in just a single routing table as per normal. > >> > >> the max is 16 but I have an artificial (even lower) at 8 but that may > >> be gone by the time people try it :-) > >> > >> I ws informed early in this project that kernel routing tables should > >> now be refered to as FIBs (forwarding Information base?). > >> > >> the new command "setfib" sets teh default fib for a process and all its > >> decendents > > > > I have been working with big routers in my day job for years and it's > > really frustrating to not have this sort of capability when I work with > > FreeBSD, but I don't expect a general purpose OS to ever have the > > routing capabilities of a dedicated router. > > > > I think this will really, really be nice for my needs, though. > > > > As terminology goes, I think you have it slightly off. > > > > Modern routers have two "classes" of tables to move packets between > > interfaces: the RIB Routing information base) and the FIB (Forwarding > > Information Base). A router has multiple RIBs, usually one for each > > network layer protocol (IPv4 and IPv6, both unicast and multicast) and > > added RIBs for policy based routes. They may be further broken up by the > > protocol used to populate the table (BGP, OSPF, ISIS, MPLS, static, > > connected, ...) > > > > The RIBs exports data, as needed to a single FIB which is used by the > > ASICs (hardware forwarding engines) to do the actual forwarding of the > > packets. In a real router, the forwarding of almost all packets is done > > in hardware with no real involvement by the processor that determines the > > routes. (N.B. This is a gross simplification of what modern routers > > do or can do, but I don't want to send a book to the list.) > > > > A general purpose OS is a different beast as it has no physical > > equivalent of the FIB. It may have multiple routing tables, though, to > > I think setrib would be a term less likely to cause confusion then > > setfib even though, in the case of your FreeBSD patches, it's really > > both. > > The way I see it the routing daemons (e.g. quagga) have the RIBS > and the kernel has FIBS because it doesn't really know the big picture. > > If we need to change the terminology now is the time.. > I asked for comments on terminology before and this is what we > came up with.. but once it gets committed.... it gets set in stone.
On further review, I agree with you. The table in the kernel really is a FIB (or a logical equivalent), and not really a RIB, so I withdraw any objection to setfib. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +1 510 486-8634 Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751
pgpy7E8KvRlXJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
