Re: More ramblings from the annoying route engine guy...
:So, I've been slowly making progress getting my route schema working
:within LWIP. This is not the way to learn C. In any case, after
:chatting on #dragonflybsd I found out that many people are
:interested in something that rolls vrrp/carp/etc functionality in
:with loadbalancing, so loosing an interface doesn't drop a box, etc.
:I just happen to have been spending the last few days pounding on
:Extreme's and wonder if their schema could be of use.
:
:Extreme's are an entirely virtual interface driven system. For
:simplicity they call their interface's vlans, although they have
:nothing to 802.1q. IP interfaces are defined by individual vlans.
:These vlans are then bound to one or more physical interfaces. This
:lets you literally bind say, 192.168.1.1/24 to 4 gigabit ports. It
:might be cpu intensive, but instead of layering on carp/vrrp could
:this sort of schema work and allow even greater flexibility?
:
:Joshua Coombs
That sounds more like interface bundling... more of an interface-level
operation and not really a route issue.
We definitely want to be able to support more general multi-path route
tables, which would be a big step up from interface bundling, but
it's a lot of work. It would require ripping out the current (almost
unreadable) route table code and rewriting it.
-Matt
Matthew Dillon
<dillon@backplane.com>
討論串 (同標題文章)
完整討論串 (本文為第 4 之 7 篇)：