resend: multiple routing table roadmap (format fix)

[Vadim Goncharov]

07.01.08 @ 00:10 Julian Elischer wrote:


>>> Is multicast and multipath routing the same?
>>  No. They are currently orthogonal.
>>  However it makes sense to merge the multicast and unicast forwarding  
>> code as currently MROUTING is limited to a fan-out of 32 next-hops  
>> only. In multicast, next-hops are normally just interfaces.
>>  Also the IETF MANET ad-hoc IP is going to need hooks there; multicast  
>> in MANET needs to address its next-hops by their unicast address, and  
>> encapsulate the traffic with a header. This is not true link layer  
>> multicast -- although it might use link layer multicast to leverage the  
>> hash filters in 802.11 MACs.
>>  As regards getting ARP out of forwarding tables, this should have  
>> happened a long time ago...
>
> I'm not 100 % convinced of this...
> I was, but I think there may still be a place for a cached arp pointer
> in hte next hop route to the arp entry for that next hop.
> I DO however thing that the arp stuff should nto be accessing its
> data via the routing table.

Surely, routing table should contain a cached pointer to an entry in L2  
table (ARP in case of Ethernet), to not do double lookups. But still  
separate those tables...

-- 
WBR, Vadim Goncharov