multiple routing tables review patch ready for simple testing.

[Bruce M. Simpson]

John Hay wrote:
>> You don't need to go to the kernel for this sort of thing unless you 
>> specifically need to implement route policy based on which interface(s) 
>> a packet came in on.
>>     
>
> Yes I know that. But in the world of adhoc wireless mesh networking
> there are very few non-linux people, so they basically call the shots
> and use the linux kernel features to the full.

Not true. There's an awful lot going on behind closed doors in the MANET 
world, and from the sounds of the emanations, they might not be using 
Linux at all.

>  In a sense I can
> understand them because their stuff also run on the small embedded
> stuff like the linksys wireless boxes and it needs to scale. The
> biggest adhoc olsr network is probably the Freifunk one that have
> more than 600 wireless nodes, mostly consisting of linksys boxes.
>   

The complexity of any system like that is still there, regardless of 
whether or not people choose to make it harder to debug code by 
prematurely pushing it into the kernel.

> On some boxes that are also connected to different kinds of networks,
> they run a different routing daemon into another fib and by setting
> the priorities on the fibs, they can decide which daemon's routes
> have the highest priority. And both routing daemons are happy because
> the other is not stomping on its feet.
>   

Yes, but this is largely to do with the fact that the Linux netlink 
socket allows daemons to coexist due to its use of a tag-length-value 
which captures that information, a different kettle of fish.

The feature you describe is totally possible without adding complexity 
to Julian's current effort.

cheers
BMS