cvs commit: src/sys/conf files options src/sys/net radix.c radix.h route.c route.h rtsock.c src/sys/netinet in_proto.c ip_output.c src/sys/netinet6 in6_proto.c in6_src.c nd6_nbr.c

Qing Li qingli at
Tue Apr 15 04:38:28 UTC 2008

	Hi Andre,
> Do you do hash-based next-hop balancing ("flow"-aware) or 
> packet based round robin?  Should it be made an option to 
> switch between them
> (globally) like on Cisco routers?

	This is hash-based next-hop balancing.

> >
> >   is disallowed. For example,
> >   
> >           route add -net
> >           route add -net
> >   
> >   The second route insertion will trigger an error message of
> >   "add net gateway route already 
> in table"
> Would it make sense to retain this behavior by default (POLA) 
> and have multi-path being enabled via sysctl like packet 
> forwarding in general?
> Just adding the same route twice with different next-hops can 
> lead to very confusing situations for the users which are not 
> used to multi-path.

	I think that is possible. Were you thinking more along the
	line of accidental route insertion ... Because users who
	are not familiar with ecmp probably won't ever bother
	with more than one route per destination. 

> >   
> >   "route: writing to routing socket: No such process"
> >   "delete net default: not in table"
> Can this be made more descriptive?  This messages are about 
> as confusing and non-descript as possible.  

	We should fix the above error message in general.

> Not being aware of the multipath functionality I would pull 
> out my last hair try to get rid of a route.

	I think updating the manpage would be a necessary
	next step.

> How does this behave with common routing daemons; 
> Quagga/Zebra, OpenBGPD, OpenOSPFD?  

	Hmm... Good question, I haven't tried them but
	I will.  Is this something you could help me
	with ?

> Do they have to be aware 
> of the multipath functionality?  Will it confuse them?

	I don't believe these routing protocols necessarily
	have to know about the multipath functionality.
	The routing protocols should continue to function
	wrt route insertion/deletion.

	You do bring up a good question about whether
	we should associate ownership with a route entry
	if multiple routing protocols are running
	in parallel. Is this a common practice from your
	experience ? And should we allow multiple routes
	with the same next-hop but different owners in
	the FIB ??

> What about the other big missing piece; new-arp? ;-)  

	That's on its way. Julian is helping me testing the
	patch and reviewing the code etc.  I am still
	debugging a locking/reference count issue and
	I hope to make good progress in the coming week.

	Soon  ;-)

> Something for BSDCan?

	Not for this May event ...

	-- Qing


More information about the cvs-all mailing list