[quagga-dev 12089] Re: Advise on implementation

Lou Berger lberger at labn.net
Tue Mar 3 19:23:59 GMT 2015

    Have you considered introducing a generic TED (topology database)
deamon in parallel to zebra?  I think this would more closely match what
other implementations have done and there are many advantages over
direct protocol exchanges.

And yes, I know this question/topic is orthogonal to the current
question/thread on shm vs ipc/rpc.

On 3/3/2015 12:37 PM, Olivier Dugeon wrote:
> Hello Dinesh,
> What do you mean by 'may no longer be isolated from each other' ? They 
> are already link to the zebra daemon.
> In order to implement BGP-LS, we need some communication between OSFP, 
> IS-IS and BGP. Of course, this will
> break this isolation principle, but wathever the solution will be.
> Regards
> Olivier
> Le 03/03/2015 16:31, Dinesh Dutt a écrit :
>> +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 
>> <mailto: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 <mailto:Quagga-dev at lists.quagga.net>
>>     https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
> _______________________________________________
> Quagga-dev mailing list
> Quagga-dev at lists.quagga.net
> https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev

More information about the Quagga-dev mailing list