11 Jun
2015
11 Jun
'15
3:03 p.m.
On 2015-06-11 20:45, Tom Hayward wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Marius Petrescu <marius(a)yo2loj.ro> wrote:
ntpd cares about it and also the Linux and FreeBSD kernels.
ISC ntpd listens on each interface automatically, hence after ~200
interfaces it breaks as it runs out of file descriptors (each interface
gets a separate socket as it uses it that way to be able to properly
select the interface to reply to packets on that interface).
Both the Linux and FreeBSD kernels (last time I checked) use a linked
list to go through the interfaces, hence more interfaces means more
slowness on the last couple of interfaces...
Hence yes, at one point it does matter ;)
Just a FYI though ;)
Greets,
Jeroen
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
Tom, we were discussing about the possibility to completely setup a mesh as
in linux, via one single P2MP interface, to be able to have a ampr-ripd-like
mechanism contained in the router.
This setup is not possible on ROS at the moment, having 3 restrictions as a
cause, even if the kernel module allows this:
1. An IPIP interface needs mandatory a remote endpoint (no P2MP)
2. A route can not have a specified hardware interface (the syntax via
w.x.y.z%interface is not allowed on IPv4)
3. OnLink routes can not be created (routes which have no routable
destination at creation time)
Forget about this; it's just syntax. Who cares if we have to have
hundreds of P2P interfaces instead of a single P2MP?