Re: More ramblings from the annoying route engine guy...

[Matthew Dillon <dillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

: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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>