Alfred Perlstein wrote:
* Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071212 15:13] wrote:
Alfred Perlstein wrote:
try using "instance".
"Oh I'm going to use the FOO routing instance."
what do Juniper call it?
"Instance" and "vrf".
VRF is the same thing we call it at Cisco :-)
R
--
Randall
>> How about routing domain or forwarding domain?
> which shortens too
fib
vfib
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Marko Zec wrote:
On Friday 14 December 2007 02:53:38 you wrote:
...
the user tool that sets a default FIB for a process could simply be
called fib or setfib.
I think setfib.
I'm sold for setfib - short enough & makes sense & intuitive & not too
ambiguous like vrf.
I think you are done here.
Julian Elischer wrote:
What I'm implementing is, as Qing said, a form of policy based forwarding
i.e. you can use a broad set of criteria to select a "FIB" (to use the
terms here) dependent on a number of criteria.
Criteria include source socket (for local connections) which
is derived from pro
Bruce M. Simpson wrote:
Hi,
Just to chime in and agree with Bjoern, I'm finishing up a routing
protocol right now so this discussion is somewhat timely.
I disagree that this is a "bikeshed", quite the contrary -- the visual
and the verbal have to live together, and it's easy for those of us
Hi,
Just to chime in and agree with Bjoern, I'm finishing up a routing
protocol right now so this discussion is somewhat timely.
I disagree that this is a "bikeshed", quite the contrary -- the visual
and the verbal have to live together, and it's easy for those of us who
have the semantic ma
On Friday 14 December 2007 00:01:32 Julian Elischer wrote:
> > I'd suggest to go with any kind of spelling of 'fibid', 'fib_id',
> > 'FIBid', or ... as that's what it is called these days.
>
> inside the kernel I'll be sticking with the rt_ prefix
> to reduce confusion. I think I'll go with the ta
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Julian Elischer wrote:
Hi,
since I've never heard of it before I don't know how standard FIB is?
FIB (Forwarding Information Base) has been very standard for years and
is often confused with foo and bar;-)
[ Trying to get very simplistic explanation together at 1:15am ]
I'd suggest to go with any kind of spelling of 'fibid', 'fib_id',
'FIBid', or ... as that's what it is called these days.
inside the kernel I'll be sticking with the rt_ prefix
to reduce confusion. I think I'll go with the tableid name used in
openBSD for compat reasons, and its succinct.
h
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Julian Elischer wrote:
Let the colour be green-blue-blue.
Bruce M. Simpson wrote:
How about "setfib"?
I strongly believe we should deprecate the use of the term "routing" where
the BSD forwarding plane is concerned, whilst familiar to many it is
misleading as to what th
Bruce M. Simpson wrote:
How about "setfib"?
I strongly believe we should deprecate the use of the term "routing"
where the BSD forwarding plane is concerned, whilst familiar to many it
is misleading as to what that part of the system is actually doing.
maybe, but it would be a large surprise
Here is another idea spurred by this:
> I understand that this feature is something which swaps in a different
> forwarding table for the application one is currently running?
>
> And that it works in a manner similar to chroot()?
Swapping in a different forwarding table is very much like
swapp
How about "setfib"?
I strongly believe we should deprecate the use of the term "routing"
where the BSD forwarding plane is concerned, whilst familiar to many it
is misleading as to what that part of the system is actually doing.
2c
BMS
___
freebsd-n
Nikos Vassiliadis wrote:
On Thursday 13 December 2007 01:46:35 Julian Elischer wrote:
pf has ifdef'ed out code to deal with the OpenBSD version of routing
tables. What it does is adding an mbuf_tag which carries the tableid
and ip_{{in,out}put,forward} take action accordingly.
EXACTLY what I p
Li, Qing wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Julian Elischer
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 2:35 PM
To: FreeBSD Net
Subject: bikeshed for all!
So, I'm playing with some multiple routing table support..
the first version
Nikos Vassiliadis wrote:
On Thursday 13 December 2007 01:46:35 Julian Elischer wrote:
pf has ifdef'ed out code to deal with the OpenBSD version of routing
tables. What it does is adding an mbuf_tag which carries the tableid
and ip_{{in,out}put,forward} take action accordingly.
EXACTLY what I p
On Thursday 13 December 2007 01:46:35 Julian Elischer wrote:
> > pf has ifdef'ed out code to deal with the OpenBSD version of routing
> > tables. What it does is adding an mbuf_tag which carries the tableid
> > and ip_{{in,out}put,forward} take action accordingly.
>
> EXACTLY what I plan on doing.
What about "routing zone" or "forwarding zone" which may be
abbreviated as "rtzone" or "fwdzone".
Julian Elischer wrote:
So, I'm playing with some multiple routing table support..
the first version is a minimal impact version with very limited
functionality.
It's done that way so I can put it i
Julian Elischer wrote:
I need a word to use to describe the network view one is currently on..
e.g. if you are usinghe second routing table, you could say I've set
xxx to 1
(0 based)..
current;y in my code I'm using 'universe' but I don't like that..
I would really really like it if we cou
Julian Elischer wrote:
Petri Helenius wrote:
How about routing domain or forwarding domain?
which shortens too
rdom / rd ?
fd would be quite overloaded acronym.
vrf would work for me too. Quite accepted industry term.
Pete
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freeb
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Chris Dillon wrote:
> Quoting Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > I need a word to use to describe the network view one is currently on..
> > e.g. if you are usinghe second routing table, you could say I've set xxx
> > to 1
> > (0 based)..
> >
> >
> > current;
> >> and the command should be called ""
> >
> > We called it vhost since to all other hosts it behaved like a
> > host on a network. In our implementation each virtual host
> > had a set of interfaces and one routing table and you could
> > actually "route" packets between these hosts among
> I need a word to use to describe the network view one is currently on..
>
> setuniverse 1 netstat -rn
> [shows table 1]
> setuniverse 2 route add 10.0.0.0/24 192.168.2.1
> setuinverse 1 route add 10.0.0.0/24 192.168.3.1
> setuniverse 2 route -n get 10.0.0.3
> [shows 192.168.2.1]
> setuniver
Bakul Shah wrote:
I need a word to use to describe the network view one is currently on..
setuniverse 1 netstat -rn
[shows table 1]
setuniverse 2 route add 10.0.0.0/24 192.168.2.1
setuinverse 1 route add 10.0.0.0/24 192.168.3.1
setuniverse 2 route -n get 10.0.0.3
[shows 192.168.2.1]
setuni
Max Laier wrote:
On Thursday 13 December 2007, Julian Elischer wrote:
Max Laier wrote:
On Wednesday 12 December 2007, Julian Elischer wrote:
So, I'm playing with some multiple routing table support..
the first version is a minimal impact version with very limited
functionality. It's done that
Chris Dillon wrote:
I think you just said it best yourself, you need a name for a "network
view", so why not just call it a "view"? Other things use the same
terminology like a DNS "view" or an SQL "view" and I think it makes
sense in this case as well.
Call it a vista ... hahaha, I kill my
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 10:54:29PM +, Peter Wood wrote:
> > rtab? rtbl?
> >
> > and the command should be called ""
>
> Would "vrf" (Virtual Routing and Forwarding) be to technical? From
> experience Cisco's call it vrf, Junipers use routing-instance IIRC.
Instance is a good name for it.
On Thursday 13 December 2007, Julian Elischer wrote:
> Max Laier wrote:
> > On Wednesday 12 December 2007, Julian Elischer wrote:
> >> So, I'm playing with some multiple routing table support..
> >> the first version is a minimal impact version with very limited
> >> functionality. It's done that w
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Julian Elischer
> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 2:35 PM
> To: FreeBSD Net
> Subject: bikeshed for all!
>
> So, I'm playing with some multiple routing table suppo
Mike Silbersack wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Julian Elischer wrote:
So, I'm playing with some multiple routing table support..
the first version is a minimal impact version with very limited
functionality.
It's done that way so I can put it in RELENG_6/7 without breaking ABIs
(I hope).
Later
Quoting Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I need a word to use to describe the network view one is currently on..
e.g. if you are usinghe second routing table, you could say I've set xxx to 1
(0 based)..
current;y in my code I'm using 'universe' but I don't like that..
I think you just sa
* Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071212 15:13] wrote:
> Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> >try using "instance".
> >
> >"Oh I'm going to use the FOO routing instance."
>
> what do Juniper call it?
"Instance" and "vrf".
-Alfred
>
> >
> >Works nicely.
> >
> >* Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [0
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 02:34:37PM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
> So, I'm playing with some multiple routing table support..
> the first version is a minimal impact version with very limited
> functionality.
> It's done that way so I can put it in RELENG_6/7 without breaking ABIs (I
> hope).
> L
Max Laier wrote:
On Wednesday 12 December 2007, Julian Elischer wrote:
So, I'm playing with some multiple routing table support..
the first version is a minimal impact version with very limited
functionality. It's done that way so I can put it in RELENG_6/7 without
breaking ABIs (I hope). Later
Peter Wood wrote:
> so, you see I really need a better name
> setrtab?
>
> rtab? rtbl?
>
> and the command should be called ""
Would "vrf" (Virtual Routing and Forwarding) be to technical? From
experience Cisco's call it vrf, Junipers use routing-instance IIRC.
P.
I'm reservi
Alfred Perlstein wrote:
try using "instance".
"Oh I'm going to use the FOO routing instance."
what do Juniper call it?
Works nicely.
* Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071212 14:34] wrote:
So, I'm playing with some multiple routing table support..
the first version is a minimal impact
Petri Helenius wrote:
How about routing domain or forwarding domain?
which shortens too
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
___
fr
* Mike Silbersack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071212 15:09] wrote:
>
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Julian Elischer wrote:
>
> >So, I'm playing with some multiple routing table support..
> >the first version is a minimal impact version with very limited
> >functionality.
> >It's done that way so I can put it i
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Julian Elischer wrote:
So, I'm playing with some multiple routing table support..
the first version is a minimal impact version with very limited
functionality.
It's done that way so I can put it in RELENG_6/7 without breaking ABIs (I
hope).
Later there will be a more fl
On Wednesday 12 December 2007, Julian Elischer wrote:
> So, I'm playing with some multiple routing table support..
> the first version is a minimal impact version with very limited
> functionality. It's done that way so I can put it in RELENG_6/7 without
> breaking ABIs (I hope). Later there will b
How about routing domain or forwarding domain?
Pete
Julian Elischer wrote:
So, I'm playing with some multiple routing table support..
the first version is a minimal impact version with very limited
functionality.
It's done that way so I can put it in RELENG_6/7 without breaking ABIs
(I hope
* Peter Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071212 14:53] wrote:
> > so, you see I really need a better name
> > setrtab?
> >
> > rtab? rtbl?
> >
> > and the command should be called ""
>
> Would "vrf" (Virtual Routing and Forwarding) be to technical? From
> experience Cisco's call it vrf, Junipers
> so, you see I really need a better name
> setrtab?
>
> rtab? rtbl?
>
> and the command should be called ""
Would "vrf" (Virtual Routing and Forwarding) be to technical? From
experience Cisco's call it vrf, Junipers use routing-instance IIRC.
P.
--
Peter Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
_
try using "instance".
"Oh I'm going to use the FOO routing instance."
Works nicely.
* Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071212 14:34] wrote:
> So, I'm playing with some multiple routing table support..
> the first version is a minimal impact version with very limited
> functionality.
> It's
So, I'm playing with some multiple routing table support..
the first version is a minimal impact version with very limited functionality.
It's done that way so I can put it in RELENG_6/7 without breaking ABIs (I hope).
Later there will be a more flexible version for-current.
Here's the question..
45 matches
Mail list logo
