On ΧΤ, 2004-03-02 at 19:32 +0000, Bruce M Simpson wrote: > On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 07:09:02PM +0300, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > > I do not insist that AS pathes in kernel are good idea. If you show me an > > other way to get AS information when constructing netflow exports in kernel, > > I'd be thankful. I'd be also thankful if you describe how policy routing can be > > implemented while no AS info in kernel. > > What do other FreeBSD networking withards think? > > I don't see any reason why we couldn't accept, for example, a 32-bit cookie > for abuse by a userland daemon, with pid, as it pleases (via an rtmsg > extension and PF_ROUTE). That is generic enough to provide the tie-in > needed with the userland RIB and the kernel FIB. This possible solution when you run accounting, but if you are going to do policy-routing, you need to get routing decision based on additional route information, and in this case you need keep this additional data in kerenl. But I agree with you that rtentry is bad place for that information. > ABI breakage may occur, but I would consider that the PF_ROUTE code is in need > of an overhaul anyway (see my mail to ru_at_ from some months ago on -current or > -net with code able to panic a kernel through malformed rtmsg contents). We need ability to link rtentry records with custom kernel data handled by extension modules (such as cisco-like accounting or policy-routing) > BMSReceived on Tue Mar 02 2004 - 23:19:17 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:45 UTC