[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87h99ipnhu.fsf@zoro.exoscale.ch>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 16:25:17 +0200
From: Vincent Bernat <vincent@...nat.im>
To: David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>
Cc: "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
❦ 14 septembre 2016 16:15 CEST, David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com> :
>> 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?
Local processes have to be made aware of the VRF by binding to the
pseudo-device. Some processes may be tricked by LD_PRELOAD but some
won't (like stuff written in Go). Maybe I should just find a better way
to bind a process to a VRF without its cooperation.
--
Instrument your programs. Measure before making "efficiency" changes.
- The Elements of Programming Style (Kernighan & Plauger)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists