netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 1/4] ipv4: fib_rules: support match on sport, dport and ip proto

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 13 Feb 2018 10:21:38 -0800
From:   Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, eric.dumazet@...il.com
Cc:     roopa@...ulusnetworks.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        dsa@...ulusnetworks.com, nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 1/4] ipv4: fib_rules: support match on sport,
 dport and ip proto

On 02/12/2018 04:03 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
> Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 13:54:59 -0800
>
>> We had project/teams using different routing tables for each vlan they
>> setup :/
>
> Indeed, people use FIB rules and think they can scale in software.  As
> currently implemented, they can't.
>
> The example you give sounds possibly like a great VRF use case btw :-)

I'm one of those people with lots of FIB rules wishing it would scale
better, and wanting a routing table per netdev.

If there is a relatively easy suggestion to make this work better, I'd
like to give it a try.  I have not looked at VRF at all to date...

Thanks,
Ben

-- 
Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com