On 1/9/17 7:01 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 1:24 PM, David Ahern wrote:
>> Why not use the VRF capability then? create a VRF and assign the interface
>> to it. End result is the same -- separate tables and the need to use a
>> bind-to-device API to hit those routes.
>
> R
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 11:11 PM, David Miller wrote:
> I understand what you're saying, but if you look at how apps can be
> put into hierarchical control groups, and automatically bind to VRF's
> based upon where they are in that cgroup hierarchy, it matches your
> use case precisely.
I think w
From: Lorenzo Colitti
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 02:47:55 +0900
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:21 PM, Andrey Jr. Melnikov
> wrote:
>>
>> > >>> I have no firsthand experience of this myself, but if the problems
>> > >>> that Andrey reports above in this thread are real, then those would
>> > >>> indica
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:21 PM, Andrey Jr. Melnikov
wrote:
>
> > >>> I have no firsthand experience of this myself, but if the problems
> > >>> that Andrey reports above in this thread are real, then those would
> > >>> indicate that the code is not well-supported. Being unable to accept
> > >>>
David Ahern wrote:
> On 1/9/17 8:30 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 12:04 PM, David Ahern
> > wrote:
> >>> I have no firsthand experience of this myself, but if the problems
> >>> that Andrey reports above in this thread are real, then those would
> >>> indicate that the c
On 1/9/17 8:30 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 12:04 PM, David Ahern
> wrote:
>>> I have no firsthand experience of this myself, but if the problems
>>> that Andrey reports above in this thread are real, then those would
>>> indicate that the code is not well-supported. Being
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 12:04 PM, David Ahern wrote:
> > I have no firsthand experience of this myself, but if the problems
> > that Andrey reports above in this thread are real, then those would
> > indicate that the code is not well-supported. Being unable to accept
> > DAD is a pretty serious i
On 1/9/17 7:29 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:08 AM, David Ahern
> wrote:
>> That's news to me. What about IPv6 and VRF is not working or well-supported?
>
> I have no firsthand experience of this myself, but if the problems
> that Andrey reports above in this thread are
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:08 AM, David Ahern wrote:
> That's news to me. What about IPv6 and VRF is not working or well-supported?
I have no firsthand experience of this myself, but if the problems
that Andrey reports above in this thread are real, then those would
indicate that the code is not
On 1/9/17 7:01 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> As others have mentioned, IPv6 on VRFs in client mode is also not
> necessarily well-supported at the moment, and I don't know how long it
> would take for it to be (assuming it can be made to work properly in
> client mode without breaking the primary us
On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 1:24 PM, David Ahern wrote:
> Why not use the VRF capability then? create a VRF and assign the interface to
> it. End result is the same -- separate tables and the need to use a
> bind-to-device API to hit those routes.
Requiring that VRFs for this creates additional comp
David Ahern wrote:
> On 1/6/17 8:30 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> > This patch adds a per-interface sysctl to have the kernel put
> > autoconf routes into different tables. This allows each interface
> > to have its own routing table if desired. Choosing the default
> > interface, or using differe
On 1/6/17 8:30 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> This patch adds a per-interface sysctl to have the kernel put
> autoconf routes into different tables. This allows each interface
> to have its own routing table if desired. Choosing the default
> interface, or using different interfaces at the same time
13 matches
Mail list logo
