netdev - Re: [net v1] fib_rules: interface group matching

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: <9540c014-78c5-9f9c-16d7-75a564f6c018@cumulusnetworks.com>
Date:   Wed, 14 Sep 2016 08:15:21 -0600
From:   David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>
To:     Vincent Bernat <vincent@...nat.im>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>,
        Wilson Kok <wkok@...ulusnetworks.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [net v1] fib_rules: interface group matching

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?