Ondrej Zajicek writes:
> On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 06:21:42PM +, Janne Heß wrote:
>> Hey everyone,
>>
>> as advertised, I have completed the Wireguard support.
>> You might see that I am not really a C expert, but I hope the code is good
>> enough.
>> If you need me to change anything or have
Janne Heß writes:
> Hey everyone,
>
> as advertised, I have completed the Wireguard support.
> You might see that I am not really a C expert, but I hope the code is good
> enough.
> If you need me to change anything or have additional questions, just
> let me know.
Hi Janne
Awesome that you ha
On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 06:21:42PM +, Janne Heß wrote:
> Hey everyone,
>
> as advertised, I have completed the Wireguard support.
> You might see that I am not really a C expert, but I hope the code is good
> enough.
> If you need me to change anything or have additional questions, just let m
On 6/7/19 2:33 PM, Maria Matejka wrote:
It will work the same way as the BIRD control socket works.
Hum.
Very intriguing.
Upon further investigation, it seems as if my test was flawed. I should
have used -A, not -F.
Thank you for the proof of concept.
Aside: Unix sockets as a cross netw
Yes. Looks like they are accounted in their own network namespace, it
is quite reasonable. But they are still can be accessed via the file
system from another namespaces. I can confirm that it works too. An
example with the bird control socket:
localhost:~/run# birdc -s retn/bird.ctl show status
B
On 6/7/19 12:14 PM, Maria Jan Matějka wrote:
Thinking once more about it, with respect to the interfaces and so,
the BGP transported over Unix socket seems to be quite simple feature
to do.
I thought, and my initial tests support, that Unix sockets are network
namespace specific.
# netstat
On 6/7/19 1:19 AM, Jakub Nowacki wrote:
I'm trying to figure out if it's possible to use protocol kernel to
export routes to OS routing table that are in different Linux
namespaces. Is this possible at all?
Maybe indirectly.
Do you need bidirectional synchronization of routes / routing tables
On 6/7/19 12:14 PM, Maria Jan Matějka wrote:
Thinking once more about it, with respect to the interfaces and so, the
BGP transported over Unix socket seems to be quite simple feature to do.
I thought, and my initial tests support, that Unix sockets are network
namespace specific.
# netstat
Hey everyone,
as advertised, I have completed the Wireguard support.
You might see that I am not really a C expert, but I hope the code is good
enough.
If you need me to change anything or have additional questions, just let me
know.
Regards
Janne
0001-sysdep-linux-Introduce-Wireguard-support
Thinking once more about it, with respect to the interfaces and so, the BGP
transported over Unix socket seems to be quite simple feature to do.
I'll see what can be done with that.
Maria
On June 7, 2019 8:06:30 PM GMT+02:00, Alexander Zubkov wrote:
>I'm not sure right now that its kernel supp
I'm not sure right now that its kernel supports vrf. Anyway, I know
there are some ways to connect them in terms of its current
possibilities. And we will do it one way or another. I just wanted to
propose a feature that could make such setups easier and probably is
not too hard to implement and do
What about having the veth's in separate VRF's inside the netns's?
Do you need the full BGP features on the Unix socket, or just a pipe-like
transport? Not promising now that I'll implement it soon, just trying to define
the feature request, yet it should be quite easy to create.
Maria
On Jun
On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 5:44 PM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>
> Alexander Zubkov writes:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > We want to use bird with different namespaces too, but proposed
> > changes is not an option for us anyway because of somewhat proprietary
> > kernel we are working with (there are some
Alexander Zubkov writes:
> Hello,
>
> We want to use bird with different namespaces too, but proposed
> changes is not an option for us anyway because of somewhat proprietary
> kernel we are working with (there are some missing definitions for
> namespaces in headers and vanilla does not fit). So
Hello,
We want to use bird with different namespaces too, but proposed
changes is not an option for us anyway because of somewhat proprietary
kernel we are working with (there are some missing definitions for
namespaces in headers and vanilla does not fit). So we are also
thinking about several in
Hello!
On 6/7/19 3:15 PM, b...@ipv2.de wrote:
> I disagree. I am quite sure this is technologically possible. As in, the
> Linux kernel should allow you to do this.
Well, it is definitely possible, yet it probably is not feasible nor reasonable.
> From my understanding of (network) namespace, a
I disagree. I am quite sure this is technologically possible. As in, the Linux
kernel should allow you to do this.
>From my understanding of (network) namespace, a process that is root should be
>able to use setns() to change its namespace.
I doubt bird is capable of this, as is, but it should b
It’s not possible - the whole purpose of namespaces *is* separation. The only
way to exchange routes is to run multiple instances of bird in the different
namespaces and set up a (veth) link between them.
Best
Remco
> On 7 Jun 2019, at 09:19, Jakub Nowacki wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to f
Hi,
I'm trying to figure out if it's possible to use protocol kernel to export
routes to OS routing table that are in different Linux namespaces. Is this
possible at all?
I've found previous post
https://bird.network.cz/pipermail/bird-users/2014-October/009393.html
suggesting
that only option is
19 matches
Mail list logo
