[quagga-dev 10951] Re: high-bandwidth, low-latency quagga necessary ?

Alexis Rosen quagga-users at alexis.users.panix.com
Thu Dec 5 08:26:07 GMT 2013

On Dec 4, 2013, at 9:36 PM, Jose Gavine Cueto <pepedocs at gmail.com> wrote:
> One could create an api or abstraction (portability issue agian) for the poll-mode APIs where applications could interface or use the provided kni whichever is better.  Sadly, support for non-Intel drivers is not yet available.

The DPDK site seems to imply that they include complete replacement drivers. My assumption was that those drivers, while perhaps providing additional APIs, also supported the APIs that the standard drivers provide. Is that wrong?

> as dump packet switch,
> I believe this is a good start to see what some quick performance gains.  There are also APIs that provide l3 algorithms and take advantage of DPDK features.

Looks like Intel thought so too. See https://01.org/packet-processing/intel%C2%AE-ovdk - that job seems to be done already, and they're well on their way to a smart switch.

> I've seen netmap but I haven't used it.  I have not seen any mention the capability to take advantage of per core memory (e.g. NUMA).

There is likely some facility for this, since they claim linear scalability across cores.


More information about the Quagga-dev mailing list