[quagga-dev 12082] Re: Advise on implementation

Dinesh Dutt ddutt at cumulusnetworks.com
Tue Mar 3 15:31:54 GMT 2015


+1, plus the issue that the various daemons may no longer be isolated from
each other due to this shm,

Dinesh

On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 7:19 AM, Greg Troxel <gdt at ir.bbn.com> wrote:

>
> My basic opinion is that shm interfaces end up being painful for various
> reasons, including portability but also leaving shm segments around.
> Since this is control plane, and sockets are fast anyway, I don't see
> any reason to get wrapped up in shm.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Quagga-dev mailing list
> Quagga-dev at lists.quagga.net
> https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.quagga.net/pipermail/quagga-dev/attachments/20150303/7c26ab1a/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Quagga-dev mailing list