On Monday, December 23, 2024 7:23:35 PM UTC Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: > On Sat, 21 Dec 2024, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: > >> Any thoughts/comments? > > > > 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). > > Seems there's plenty people using multi-FIB in various scenarios still, > which is good to know. > > Go for it.
i've been thinking along these lines for a few years now, since my vm server is multi-fib. each interface has a fib, mostly zero. for incoming TCP SYNs, i'd like to carry that fib# into the resulting PCB so that that fib's routing table and especially its default route will be used for that connection. yes, i can do that with ipfw, and am in fact doing so now. however, that's crocky. i think defaulting to the interface FIB for connections created and maintained by the kernel should always happen -- not opt-in, not opt-out, just always. is it worth me sending a patch that does this or would it be considered controversial? (making this happen for UDP is also interesting but is a separate matter since those servers already have to maintain socket-per-interface in order to get their source addresses to match the client's destination address.) -- Paul Vixie
