I actually agree with both Vincent and Lou :) The current paradigm is a kernel based infrastructure and will be so for the foreseeable future. So if you are doing development *now* I would highly recommend working towards this paradigm. So Vincent is correct. Having said that, we are looking towards more formally defining the DataPlane API so that it becomes possible to allow a fully implemented dataplane api that if someone wanted to implement non-kernel based interfaces they could. So Lou is correct too! There is a lot of work here though, mainly of a infrastructure updates. I've currently (slowly) started trying to define this api( See https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/pull/2292 ). The current api line for the dataplane is fuzzy at best and lots of assumptions are made about behavior and how data structures are created. This line must be wedged apart as a first step. If you are unsure where to start here, please ask and we'll have suggestions. We also have additional goals for zebra such as true pthreads and nexthop-group route entry indirection to name a few. Please note we are not doing this work specifically to allow a full dataplane outside of a kernel, it should fall out if I do the work correctly for what I am interested in. I am doing this work because I think this work will allow me to do some work with route-aggregation as well as more efficiently pass data to the kernel for route installs. I'm sure other people have their own reasons, just as long as we keep those in mind and work together. thanks! donald On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 3:04 PM, Jay Chen <jchen1@paloaltonetworks.com> wrote:
A quick question about FRR interfaces. The Zebra get interface information/status from Kernel.
In our platform, it is almost impossible to put interface into kernel (due to history reasons people object to do so). Is there anyone else facing the same situation and any suggestions for a work around? Or anything similarly to FPM existing for interface to bypass kernel (from interface manager to Zebra instead)?
Thanks, Jay