[Xorp-hackers] XORP and/or Click with an overlay protocol

[Victor Faion]

OK I will try to implement it the way you suggested. Thank you for all
the help, I'm sure I'll be back with more questions :)

Victor

On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 00:41, Pavlin Radoslavov
<pavlin at icsi.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> Victor Faion <vfaion at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 18:46, Pavlin Radoslavov <pavlin at icsi.berkeley.edu>wrote:
>>
>> > Victor Faion <vfaion at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hello,
>> > >
>> > > I wanted to use my forwarding engine (which has its own forwarding table)
>> > > together with my own protocol (at the application layer, using sockets)
>> > with
>> > > XORP. I wasn't sure if it's better to implement a separate process that
>> > > interacts with XORP's FEA (this would be the forwarding engine) and
>> > another
>> > > process that represents the protocol or if I should implement all of this
>> > > using Click and then plug it into XORP (or just use it only with Click).
>> > In
>> > > other words, how much of XORP's code I would need to change to do this
>> > and
>> > > would it be easier to do it in Click or to use both?
>> >
>> > Without additional info about your protocol it is difficult to give
>> > you advice that will fit best your specific needs.
>> >
>> > If I make the assumption that your control protocol is similar to, say,
>> > OSPF or RIP, my generalized advice would be to implement your
>> > control protocol as a separate process that interacts with the XORP
>> > FEA. If you don't have any specific requirements, you shouldn't need
>> > any additional changes to XORP.
>> >
>> >
>> > Re. your question of XORP vs. Click.
>> > From XORP's perspective, Click is an IPv4/IPv6 data plane,
>> > though Click itself is much more than that.
>> > Hence, if you implement your protocol in XORP, the "shall I use
>> > XORP+Click" question becomes a question of whether you want to use
>> > Click as the IPv4/IPv6 data plane.
>> > On the other hand, if you have a relatively simple protocol with
>> > some unusual requirements (say, it requires tight integration with
>> > the data plane), and the existing UNIX kernel API is not sufficient,
>> > you might be able to save time getting the initial prototype working
>> > if you use only Click.
>> >
>> > Hope that helps,
>> > Pavlin
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > Victor
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > Xorp-hackers mailing list
>> > > Xorp-hackers at icir.org
>> > > http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-hackers
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Thank you for the response, the control protocol is a link-state routing
>> protocol. It uses LSR but also needs to associate additional information
>> with hosts and this is why I think I might need to make another XORP process
>> for this protocol, and I think its easier to plug in a new protocol into
>> XORP rather than Click.
>>
>> As for using Click as the data plane, I could make my forwarding table as a
>> Click element, or would it be simpler to do it as a separate XORP process
>> without relying on Click?
>
> If it is just a routing protocol you don't need Click. It will be
> simpler if you use the existing UNIX kernel forwarding, and
> implement LSR as a separate XORP process.
>
> Pavlin
>
>
>> Victor
>> _______________________________________________
>> Xorp-hackers mailing list
>> Xorp-hackers at icir.org
>> http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-hackers
>