In today's technical meeting we discussed removing the ability to have views as an option in bgp. Before we do any such thing we decided to poll the community to see if anyone is using views and if so what is the use case that they are using them under. So if you have any insight into this we would love to hear from you! Thanks! donald
Hello, We make use of views so that the underlying operating system is not aware of any routes held by the frr bgp process. We use FRR as our core network route servers between a number of core nodes to allow them to exchange routes between them (filters...etc.) I think having the views feature is an advantage to FRR when running as a route server since the underlining OS has no need to know or make use of the routes held in the routing table. -- Kind Regards Richard Mayhew ________________________________ From: dev <dev-bounces@lists.frrouting.org> on behalf of Donald Sharp <sharpd@cumulusnetworks.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 6:23:12 PM To: FRRouting-Dev Subject: [dev] BGP Views In today's technical meeting we discussed removing the ability to have views as an option in bgp. Before we do any such thing we decided to poll the community to see if anyone is using views and if so what is the use case that they are using them under. So if you have any insight into this we would love to hear from you! Thanks! donald _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@lists.frrouting.org https://lists.frrouting.org/listinfo/dev ________________________________ This e-mail is subject to the Directel Communications (Pty) Ltd electronic communication legal notice, available at: http://www.directel.co.za/emaildisclaimer ________________________________
Hi Richard, As discussed in issue #2900 [1], the same functionality of BGP views can be achieved by running a separate bgpd instance with --pathspace and --no_kernel. With this approach it should even be possible to run BGP views within VRFs. Do you think that would work for you? The only downside I see is the extra management overhead to deal with multiple instances (additional directories and configuration file, separate vtysh session to access the second bgpd instance, etc). Nothing that should be a big problem from my perspective. Cheers, Renato. [1] https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/issues/2900 On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 2:18 PM, Richard Mayhew [directel] <richard@directel.co.za> wrote:
Hello,
We make use of views so that the underlying operating system is not aware of any routes held by the frr bgp process. We use FRR as our core network route servers between a number of core nodes to allow them to exchange routes between them (filters...etc.)
I think having the views feature is an advantage to FRR when running as a route server since the underlining OS has no need to know or make use of the routes held in the routing table.
-- Kind Regards
Richard Mayhew
________________________________ From: dev <dev-bounces@lists.frrouting.org> on behalf of Donald Sharp <sharpd@cumulusnetworks.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 6:23:12 PM To: FRRouting-Dev Subject: [dev] BGP Views
In today's technical meeting we discussed removing the ability to have views as an option in bgp. Before we do any such thing we decided to poll the community to see if anyone is using views and if so what is the use case that they are using them under. So if you have any insight into this we would love to hear from you!
Thanks!
donald
_______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@lists.frrouting.org https://lists.frrouting.org/listinfo/dev ________________________________ This e-mail is subject to the Directel Communications (Pty) Ltd electronic communication legal notice, available at: http://www.directel.co.za/emaildisclaimer ________________________________
_______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@lists.frrouting.org https://lists.frrouting.org/listinfo/dev
-- Renato Westphal
Hi Renato, I am sure that if there is a way to run the process without it exposing the routes to the local operating system it would work just fine. Admittedly I am not an expert in FRR, but wouldn't a VRF be the seen the same as a VIEW (Separate routing table)? I currently only run 2 views, 1 IPv4 and 1 IPv6 so it wouldn’t be a big deal if one had to run 2 separate bgpd's, maybe this would even work better in terms of multi-threading? Kind Regards Richard -----Original Message----- From: Renato Westphal [mailto:renato@opensourcerouting.org] Sent: Thursday, 06 September 2018 20:45 To: Richard Mayhew [directel] <richard@directel.co.za> Cc: FRRouting-Dev <dev@lists.frrouting.org>; Donald Sharp <sharpd@cumulusnetworks.com> Subject: Re: [dev] BGP Views Hi Richard, As discussed in issue #2900 [1], the same functionality of BGP views can be achieved by running a separate bgpd instance with --pathspace and --no_kernel. With this approach it should even be possible to run BGP views within VRFs. Do you think that would work for you? The only downside I see is the extra management overhead to deal with multiple instances (additional directories and configuration file, separate vtysh session to access the second bgpd instance, etc). Nothing that should be a big problem from my perspective. Cheers, Renato. [1] https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/issues/2900 On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 2:18 PM, Richard Mayhew [directel] <richard@directel.co.za> wrote:
Hello,
We make use of views so that the underlying operating system is not aware of any routes held by the frr bgp process. We use FRR as our core network route servers between a number of core nodes to allow them to exchange routes between them (filters...etc.)
I think having the views feature is an advantage to FRR when running as a route server since the underlining OS has no need to know or make use of the routes held in the routing table.
-- Kind Regards
Richard Mayhew
________________________________ From: dev <dev-bounces@lists.frrouting.org> on behalf of Donald Sharp <sharpd@cumulusnetworks.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 6:23:12 PM To: FRRouting-Dev Subject: [dev] BGP Views
In today's technical meeting we discussed removing the ability to have views as an option in bgp. Before we do any such thing we decided to poll the community to see if anyone is using views and if so what is the use case that they are using them under. So if you have any insight into this we would love to hear from you!
Thanks!
donald
_______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@lists.frrouting.org https://lists.frrouting.org/listinfo/dev ________________________________ This e-mail is subject to the Directel Communications (Pty) Ltd electronic communication legal notice, available at: http://www.directel.co.za/emaildisclaimer ________________________________
_______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@lists.frrouting.org https://lists.frrouting.org/listinfo/dev
-- Renato Westphal ________________________________ This e-mail is subject to the Directel Communications (Pty) Ltd electronic communication legal notice, available at: http://www.directel.co.za/emaildisclaimer ________________________________
Good point. Yes, running BGP views on separate processes should be better in terms of multi-threading. Regarding your first question, VRFs are more than just separate routing tables. VRFs provide isolated network stacks, so you can have for example interfaces with overlapping IP addresses and processes bound to the same TCP/IP port/address tuples. This reminds me that running two different bgpd instances on the same VRF shouldn't be as simple as it seems. The second bgpd instance will either need to specify a different BGP port (--bgp_port) or a different local address (--listenon) to avoid conflicting TCP listening sockets. This needs to be documented when removing support for BGP views. Cheers, Renato. On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Richard Mayhew [directel] <richard@directel.co.za> wrote:
Hi Renato,
I am sure that if there is a way to run the process without it exposing the routes to the local operating system it would work just fine. Admittedly I am not an expert in FRR, but wouldn't a VRF be the seen the same as a VIEW (Separate routing table)? I currently only run 2 views, 1 IPv4 and 1 IPv6 so it wouldn’t be a big deal if one had to run 2 separate bgpd's, maybe this would even work better in terms of multi-threading?
Kind Regards Richard
-----Original Message----- From: Renato Westphal [mailto:renato@opensourcerouting.org] Sent: Thursday, 06 September 2018 20:45 To: Richard Mayhew [directel] <richard@directel.co.za> Cc: FRRouting-Dev <dev@lists.frrouting.org>; Donald Sharp <sharpd@cumulusnetworks.com> Subject: Re: [dev] BGP Views
Hi Richard,
As discussed in issue #2900 [1], the same functionality of BGP views can be achieved by running a separate bgpd instance with --pathspace and --no_kernel. With this approach it should even be possible to run BGP views within VRFs. Do you think that would work for you? The only downside I see is the extra management overhead to deal with multiple instances (additional directories and configuration file, separate vtysh session to access the second bgpd instance, etc). Nothing that should be a big problem from my perspective.
Cheers, Renato.
[1] https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/issues/2900
On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 2:18 PM, Richard Mayhew [directel] <richard@directel.co.za> wrote:
Hello,
We make use of views so that the underlying operating system is not aware of any routes held by the frr bgp process. We use FRR as our core network route servers between a number of core nodes to allow them to exchange routes between them (filters...etc.)
I think having the views feature is an advantage to FRR when running as a route server since the underlining OS has no need to know or make use of the routes held in the routing table.
-- Kind Regards
Richard Mayhew
________________________________ From: dev <dev-bounces@lists.frrouting.org> on behalf of Donald Sharp <sharpd@cumulusnetworks.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 6:23:12 PM To: FRRouting-Dev Subject: [dev] BGP Views
In today's technical meeting we discussed removing the ability to have views as an option in bgp. Before we do any such thing we decided to poll the community to see if anyone is using views and if so what is the use case that they are using them under. So if you have any insight into this we would love to hear from you!
Thanks!
donald
_______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@lists.frrouting.org https://lists.frrouting.org/listinfo/dev ________________________________ This e-mail is subject to the Directel Communications (Pty) Ltd electronic communication legal notice, available at: http://www.directel.co.za/emaildisclaimer ________________________________
_______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@lists.frrouting.org https://lists.frrouting.org/listinfo/dev
-- Renato Westphal ________________________________ This e-mail is subject to the Directel Communications (Pty) Ltd electronic communication legal notice, available at: http://www.directel.co.za/emaildisclaimer ________________________________
-- Renato Westphal
Renato Westphal <renato@opensourcerouting.org> wrote: > As discussed in issue #2900 [1], the same functionality of BGP views > can be achieved by running a separate bgpd instance with --pathspace > and --no_kernel. With this approach it should even be possible to run > BGP views within VRFs. Do you think that would work for you? The only Would this usage also be appropriate for use on (IX) route-servers? -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [ ] mcr@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
participants (4)
-
Donald Sharp -
Michael Richardson -
Renato Westphal -
Richard Mayhew [directel]