On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 13:29:01 +0300 "Andrey V. Elsukov" <bu7c...@yandex.ru> wrote:
> On 21.12.2024 19:34, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: > > How much use are FIBs still these days? Half of the original use cases > > I can think of could easily and better be overcome by using vnet jails > > with a physical or virtual interface (e.g, vcc) being delegated to the > > vnet. > > > > I wonder if anyone on FreeBSD is using FIBs to actually have multi-FIB > > forwardig but that very little touches your use case apart from the mgmt > > which again can be factored out better (or inversely, factoring out the > > forwarding). > > > > I would honestly know who and how FIBs are still in use today or if they > > should be put on a list to be removed for 16 (I assume I might be > > surprised). > > > > That all said with your opt-in approach if the code itself doesn't bring > > too many new complications I'd be happy with it (assuming FIBs still > > have a use case). > > Some might say that VNET is useless and should be removed instead. We > have bhyve and old-style jails. Without VNET the kernel code will be > robust and simple again, and easy for debugging. > > But 1st April is not yet, and someone will say nothing. It's not 1st April, I always had same bad feeling about VNET since 6.x. Unfortunately, with Linux network namespaces competing, it's now too late to axe VNET. > FIBs are useful as is, but also can be used with "ipfw setfib" that make > it irreplaceable. And there is no SQLite (as alternative to FIBs) in kernel yet... -- WBR, @nuclight
