Re: [linux-vrf-core] VRF for Linux (MPLS IP VPNs)

[Nick E. <ni...@dc...>]

Actually, the allegro "Virtual Router" approach is very similar to what we
are looking at, or rather our recent topics can be considered a blending
of the two approaches.

Allegro's approach involves dedicated hardware resources for each virtual
router, which we have not addressed.

Out first approach, using UML, is currently working.  The problem is that
UML imposes very servere performance penalties, but each UML actually is a
virtual router.

The second approach involves pushing the separation or virualization down
into the kernel.  This is obviously a lot more work, but the recently
discovered "server context" work (http://www.solucorp.qc.ca/miscprj/s_context.hc)
goes a good way toward making this a reality.

(The code is good, but really weak in the networking department.  We need
to locate all of the roots in the net subsystem and push them into the
s_context structure.  At least, that is what I think right now)

If we get this right, we will get vrfs in the "default" s-context, which
will be the basis for the "virtual servers" in the "non-default" contexts.

Comments?

--Nick

On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, Manish Karir wrote:

>
> As we are still feeling around for scope here...
> Maybe we should consider the approach that Allegro is
> taking....
>
> http://www.allegronetworks.com/technology/
>
> is this not a cleaner nicer way of doing VRF's??
> or am I missing something quite fundamental here?
>
> manish
>
>
>
> On Thu, 1 Nov 2001, Nick Eggleston wrote:
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-vrf-core mailing list
> lin...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-vrf-core
>