netdev - Re: [RFC net-next 0/6] Proposal for VRF-lite

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <559AA187.6000007@6wind.com>
Date:	Mon, 06 Jul 2015 17:40:55 +0200
From:	Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>
To:	David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
CC:	shm@...ulusnetworks.com, roopa@...ulusnetworks.com,
	gospo@...ulusnetworks.com, jtoppins@...ulusnetworks.com,
	nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com, ddutt@...ulusnetworks.com,
	hannes@...essinduktion.org, stephen@...workplumber.org,
	hadi@...atatu.com, ebiederm@...ssion.com, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 0/6] Proposal for VRF-lite - v2

Le 06/07/2015 17:03, David Ahern a écrit :
> In the context of internet scale routing a requirement that always
> comes up is the need to partition the available routing tables into
> disjoint routing planes. A specific use case is the multi-tenancy
> problem where each tenant has their own unique routing tables and in
> the very least need different default gateways.
>
> This is an attempt to build the ability to create virtual router
> domains aka VRF's (VRF-lite to be specific) in the linux packet
> forwarding stack. The main observation is that through the use of
> rules and socket binding to interfaces, all the facilities that we
> need are already present in the infrastructure. What is missing is a
> handle that identifies a routing domain and can be used to gather
> applicable rules/tables and uniqify neighbor selection. The scheme
> used needs to preserves the notions of ECMP, and general routing
> principles.
[snip]
>   drivers/net/vrf.c             | 486 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
[snip]

I'm still opposed to name this 'vrf', see the v1 thread:
  - http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg332357.html
  - http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg332376.html

Shrijeet seemed to agree to rename it, is there a problem?


Regards,
Nicolas
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html