Le 08/06/2015 20:35, Shrijeet Mukherjee a écrit :
From: Shrijeet Mukherjee <s...@cumulusnetworks.com>
In the context of internet scale routing a requirement that always
comes up is the need to partition the available routing tables into
disjoint routing planes. A specific use case is the multi-tenancy
problem where each tenant has their own unique routing tables and in
the very least need different default gateways.
This is an attempt to build the ability to create virtual router
domains aka VRF's (VRF-lite to be specific) in the linux packet
forwarding stack. The main observation is that through the use of
[snip]
drivers/net/vrf.c | 654 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I'm not really in favor of the name 'vrf'. This term is very controversial and
having a consensus of what is/contains a 'vrf' is quite impossible.
There was already a lot of discussions about this topic on quagga ml that show
that everybody has a different opinion about this term ;-)
I know you call this 'MRF' internally, why not using this name instead?
Regards,
Nicolas
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
