vrf support in FreeBSD

[Ray Mihm]

Point taken about the globals but layer 3 (IP) and layer 4 (TCP, UDP,
etc) aren't modules yet and that shouldn't be a problem right? I'm not
trying to trivialize or solve the problem here. But my point is, these
shouldn't be show-stoppers when you consider the benefit of having
this feature in FreeBSD.

Regards,

Ray.


On 5/9/06, Julian Elischer <julian at elischer.org> wrote:
> Ray Mihm wrote:
>
> > Using ipfw tables is essentially a non-starter, IMHO. How would
> > routing protocols use ipfw based tables, for example? Marko's work
> > touches a lot of files, but I don't think it's heavy weight.
> >
> > I also think using Marko's idea and Jails would allow create the
> > notion of a logical system and multiple such logical systems may be
> > configured on a single FreeBSD system.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Ray.
>
> Don't get me wrong.. I very much like vimage, and it is a great pitty
> that it
> (in the form it is in now)
> is basically incompatible in concept with freeBSD 5+  (where most things
> are modules)(*).
>
> I've even done some small work on prototyping how one MIGHT be able to
> make it happen, but for what I want (just be able to have some packets use
> an alternative routing table), having ipfw fwd them according to a table
> does just fine.
>
> (*) The problem is that moving all globals to a structure only works if
> you know what globals
> are linked in.  If you load a module, you need to expand the structure.
> This is problematic
> to say the least. The same problem has been solved with
> Thread-local-storage using hooks
> in the compiler and linker but I don't think we can do that in the
> kernel. (at least not easily).
>
>