[Top] [All Lists]

Re: routable interfaces

To: Gleb Natapov <gleb@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: routable interfaces
From: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 07:25:06 -0500 (EST)
Cc: <kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx

On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Gleb Natapov wrote:

> I am not talking about sending or receiving packets here. OSPF has a strong 
> notion
> of interface. Interface has mtu, ip address and many OSPF specific parameters,
> it has state that changes according to interface state machine, it has list 
> of neighbours,
> etc, etc. All this things are needed in order to be able to build adjacency 
> through the
> interface.

urgh. OK. I forgot about ospf "interfaces". I think the term interface is
highly overloaded.

> Currently zebra has one to one mapping between "kernel interfaces" and "zebra 
> interfaces".
> If I want to run OSPF (I don't know about other protocols) on secondary ips 
> zebra should
> be able to have "zebra interface" for each ip (and not for each interface), 
> or, in other words
> one to many mapping. This is only theory, I don't know if it's even possible 
> to implement such
> thing (you never know until you'll try ;)).

It sounds reasonable especially from the perspective that you are
forced to maintain distinct neighbor lists per "interface". I think the
problem is solved if Zebra knows how to do NBMA OSPF. On the same link: at
least the physical attributes can be shared (MTU etc) between all the "virtual
links" or maybe not even that if you use path/per-route MTUs.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>