Hi Jerome,
> Regarding multi instance, have you considered running multiple instances of
> VPP
> in different containers?
I did, however this is not an option as I'd like to keep my "entire topology
running on the same machine" philosophy.
Also, I think this could be a plus for the router plug
Hello Justin,
Regarding multi instance, have you considered running multiple instances of VPP
in different containers?
Jerome
Le 08/12/2018 18:00, « vpp-dev@lists.fd.io au nom de Justin Iurman »
a écrit :
Hi Hongjun,
> There is no plan to use memif at present. Welcome your contri
Hi Hongjun,
> There is no plan to use memif at present. Welcome your contribution if you
> will.
Of course, if I find some free time. Anyone interested in working on this ?
> In router plugin, we inject links, routes, etc. from different namespace in
> Kernel into different VRFs In VPP.
> Not s
@lists.fd.io] On Behalf Of Justin
Iurman
Sent: Friday, December 7, 2018 2:00 PM
To: Neale Ranns
Cc: Jan Hugo Prins | BetterBe ; Ole Troan
; vpp-dev ; Ray Kinsella
Subject: Re: [vpp-dev] Maintainer router plugin
Guys,
Any plan to use memif interfaces for router plugin ? Also, is there a plan
rBe <
> jpr...@betterbe.com>
> *Date: *Wednesday, 11 April 2018 at 20:54
> *To: *Ole Troan
> *Cc: *vpp-dev , Ray Kinsella
> *Subject: *Re: [vpp-dev] Maintainer router plugin
>
>
>
> Hi Ole,
>
> I really don't mind that you all derailed my discussion.
,
>
> A VPP packet trace and the output from “sh ip mfib’ would help diagnose your
> multicast packet drops.
>
> /neale
>
> From: on behalf of Jan Hugo Prins | BetterBe
>
> Date: Wednesday, 11 April 2018 at 20:54
> To: Ole Troan
> Cc: vpp-dev , Ray Kinsel
Hi Jan,
A VPP packet trace and the output from “sh ip mfib’ would help diagnose your
multicast packet drops.
/neale
From: on behalf of Jan Hugo Prins | BetterBe
Date: Wednesday, 11 April 2018 at 20:54
To: Ole Troan
Cc: vpp-dev , Ray Kinsella
Subject: Re: [vpp-dev] Maintainer router plugin
Hi Ole,
I really don't mind that you all derailed my discussion. I think a good
design discussion is a good thing. Especially when the end result is a
better product, or in this case, better integration between products.
What I have found with respect to OSPFv3, is that the OSPF multicast
packets
> On Apr 11, 2018, at 12:19 PM, Ole Troan wrote:
>
> VPP API used to program routes. learn interface events, addresses etc. Pure
> user-land no involvement from kernel.
>
We’re also not “fans” of the router plugin. (And we’ve done a lot of work on
it.)
We have a system (today) that uses t
Jan Hugo,
> But this basically means that, for now, it won't be possible to create a BGP
> router with a combination of FRR and VPP doing both IPv4 and IPv6 with OSPF
> and BGP.
> Or do you see possibilities to make OSPFv3 work?
Sorry, for derailing your thread and making it into an architectur
Ray,
> I agree - but completely reinventing the wheel is not a the best course
> either. These are tried and tested implementations and are worth reusing, I
> do agree that integrating through the Linux Kernel is not ideal.
>
> We developed the router plugin to show that integration was possibl
But this basically means that, for now, it won't be possible to create a
BGP router with a combination of FRR and VPP doing both IPv4 and IPv6
with OSPF and BGP.
Or do you see possibilities to make OSPFv3 work?
Jan Hugo Prins
On 04/11/2018 03:20 PM, Ray Kinsella wrote:
> Hi Ole,
>
> I agree - bu
Hi Ole,
I agree - but completely reinventing the wheel is not a the best course
either. These are tried and tested implementations and are worth
reusing, I do agree that integrating through the Linux Kernel is not ideal.
We developed the router plugin to show that integration was possible we
Hi Jan,
Yes we have been developing/maintaining the router plugin for sometime.
Ray K
On 11/04/2018 00:27, Jan Hugo Prins | BetterBe wrote:
Hello,
Is someone actively maintaining the router plugin?
Jan Hugo
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-=-=-=-=-=
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello Ole,
That sounds to me like the router / rtnetlink plugins are a dead horse,
not worth any more of my time ;-)
I have setup a BGP session on IPv4 and the first results are not that
good. The session is setup, the routes are installed in the Lin
Hi Jan Hugo,
> The main thing I'm currently missing is OSPFv3. The multicast packets
> don't arrive in linux kernel.
> Attached is a pcap file showing the dropped packets.
> OSPFv2 seems to be working fine.
> I hope to test the BGP for IPv4 and IPv6 today.
>
> I have put my findings in the vppsb-
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello Ole,
The main thing I'm currently missing is OSPFv3. The multicast packets
don't arrive in linux kernel.
Attached is a pcap file showing the dropped packets.
OSPFv2 seems to be working fine.
I hope to test the BGP for IPv4 and IPv6 today.
I ha
Hi Jan,
> Is someone actively maintaining the router plugin?
I'm not a big fan of the router plugin.
The starting point of the router plugin is "how can you take an unmodified
routing protocol implementation and make it work with VPP".
That leads to all kinds of complexities as the two methods t
Hello,
Is someone actively maintaining the router plugin?
Jan Hugo
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
19 matches
Mail list logo
