Kernel protocol and different namespaces

[Alexander Zubkov]

I'm not sure right now that its kernel supports vrf. Anyway, I know
there are some ways to connect them in terms of its current
possibilities. And we will do it one way or another. I just wanted to
propose a feature that could make such setups easier and probably is
not too hard to implement and does not brake internal things. I would
be also glad to hear from Jakub if it will help him too.
Of course bgp is not the only option here, it is just the most
familiar to me as a prtocol working over a stream socket and that
would keep communities etc. Pipe would be fine too, but it does not
have "on the wire representation" now, I suppose. And I am not sure
about things like - when the route is received, it is checked with
local interfaces etc. I think pipe skips most of this stuff. But I'm
not familiar with the internals of bird, just assuming what pros and
cons could be.

On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 7:21 PM Maria Jan Matějka <jan.matejka at nic.cz> wrote:
>
> What about having the veth's in separate VRF's inside the netns's?
>
> Do you need the full BGP features on the Unix socket, or just a pipe-like transport? Not promising now that I'll implement it soon, just trying to define the feature request, yet it should be quite easy to create.
>
> Maria
>
> On June 7, 2019 6:00:14 PM GMT+02:00, Alexander Zubkov <green at qrator.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 5:44 PM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke at toke.dk> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>  Alexander Zubkov <green at qrator.net> writes:
>>>
>>>>  Hello,
>>>>
>>>>  We want to use bird with different namespaces too, but proposed
>>>>  changes is not an option for us anyway because of somewhat proprietary
>>>>  kernel we are working with (there are some missing definitions for
>>>>  namespaces in headers and vanilla does not fit). So we are also
>>>>  thinking about several instances of bird as Maria Jan Matějka
>>>>  suggests. But we need to find some way to interconnect them. But we
>>>>  think creating a veth interface is not a best option for us.
>>>
>>>
>>>  Why not?
>>
>>
>> We do not want direct routing between namespaces. And also add some
>> additional interfaces - it is a hardware switch, so it could disturb
>> something. But may be not. This could be an option too. I just wrote
>> that it could be not the best one. We have not tested yet, just
>> considering possibilities.
>>
>>>
>>>  -Toke
>
>
> --
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.