Re: Stack virtualization (was: running out of mbufs?)
From: Andre Oppermann (andre_at_freebsd.org)
Date: 08/09/05
- Previous message: Darcy Buskermolen: "panic: if_attach called without if_alloc'd input()"
- In reply to: Marko Zec: "Stack virtualization (was: running out of mbufs?)"
- Next in thread: Jeremie Le Hen: "Re: Stack virtualization (was: running out of mbufs?)"
- Reply: Jeremie Le Hen: "Re: Stack virtualization (was: running out of mbufs?)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 18:25:17 +0200 To: Marko Zec <zec@icir.org>
Marko Zec wrote:
>
> On Tuesday 09 August 2005 14:41, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> ...
> > I don't want to have non-global interface lists in the kernel.
>
> But sooner or later you _will_ end up with some sort of non-global
> interface lists after all, just as you stated yourself at the beginning
> of this tread. Of course one can still maintain all interfaces linked
> in one list and introduce another set of separated lists on per-stack
> basis which will be used to logically group interfaces into smaller
> sets, but that's really just a question of coding / design style.
I thinking more along the lines of OpenBSD's interface groups. There
you just add another attribute called group to an interface. Claudio
(@openbsd.org, working at next desk to me) explained it quickly to me
after it was raised here on the list. The group name is a string but
in the ifnet structure only an int is stored. This group name then
is used primarily for pf firewall to create rules for interface groups.
It handles newly arriving interfaces too.
I haven't fully explored all applications and possible tie-ins with
jails, virtual stacks etc. but it looks very interesting.
For example I want to have multiple routing tables within the same
stack. These routing tables can be opaque or fall-through and match
on the source and destination address (not at the same time though).
This way we get ultimate routing flexibility in using FreeBSD as
router. An incoming packet on interface em0 with group priority
would first match into routing table X, and if no match fall-through
to the default routing table. Or you could create a source matching
routing table Y sending matching packets further to table Z for
low priority routing.
It's hard to describe this textually to its full extent. That's why
my upcoming paper will have mostly graphics depicting the packet flow
and the processing options.
-- Andre _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
- Previous message: Darcy Buskermolen: "panic: if_attach called without if_alloc'd input()"
- In reply to: Marko Zec: "Stack virtualization (was: running out of mbufs?)"
- Next in thread: Jeremie Le Hen: "Re: Stack virtualization (was: running out of mbufs?)"
- Reply: Jeremie Le Hen: "Re: Stack virtualization (was: running out of mbufs?)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
