On 9/14/16 6:40 AM, Vincent Bernat wrote: > When a user wants to assign a routing table to a group of incoming > interfaces, the current solutions are: > > - one IP rule for each interface (scalability problems) > - use of fwmark and devgroup matcher (don't work with internal route > lookups, used for example by RPF) > - use of VRF devices (more complex)
Why do you believe that? A VRF is a formalized grouping of interfaces that includes an API for locally generated traffic to specify which VRF/group to use. And, with the l3mdev rule you only need 1 rule for all VRFs regardless of the number which is the best solution to the scalability problem of adding rules per device/group/VRF. What use case are trying to solve?
