Re: [mpls-linux-devel] Re: 2.6 Spec: Random comments.

[Jamal H. S. <ha...@zn...>]

On Fri, 2004-02-13 at 12:32, James R. Leu wrote:
> The MPLS tunnel interface fits well into the 'cisco' model of TE LSPS, which
> represents them as a ptp Tunnel interface with a peer address of the
> end-point of the LSP.  The 'juniper' model represents TE LSPs and just
> another route in the MPLS 'routing' table (/32 route for the end-point of
> the TE LSP).  I personally perfer the 'cisco' model, it provides more
> flexibility (anything that can work with a netdevice can use it).
> 

Ok. So i may be getting a better idea. Essentially by being a netdevice
it gets the advantage of being routable etc.
Just because CISCO has it is good reason to add it. 

We should also support the Juniper approach. We are Linux after all ;->
One piece i said earlier was missing that may enable this is the
tc-action code[1].
With this i can do at pre-IP level do something along the lines
of:

tc filter add dev eth0 parent ffff: protocol ip prio 1 \
u32 match ip src 10.0.0.21/32 flowid 1:15 \
action set nhlfe_id 10 \
action mpls_tunnel  \
action  mirred egress redirect dev eth2

and then use the skb->nhlfe_id in the mpls_tunnel before
redirecting the packet out eth2.
Of course i could let routing take care of redirecting to
dev eth2.

cheers,
jamal

 
[1]This code is going in; just lazy to scrub it at this point
http://www.cyberus.ca/~hadi/patches/action/README