On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 07:25:06AM -0500, jamal wrote:
> > 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.
>
OSPF knows about NBMA, NBMA has one network address and no broadcast
capability; we face a different
problem here: we have many network addresses assigned to one network.
--
Gleb.
|