Re: per-FIB socket binding

On Sat, 21 Dec 2024 16:34:25 +0000 (UTC)
"Bjoern A. Zeeb" <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Tue, 17 Dec 2024, Mark Johnston wrote:
> 
> > Lately I've been working on adding FIB awareness to bind(2) and
> > inpcb lookup. Below I'll describe the project a bit.  Any
> > feedback/comments/suggestions would be appreciated.
> >
> > Today, a TCP or UDP socket can receive connections or datagrams
> > from any FIB.  
> 
> SCTP?
> 
> > Any thoughts/comments?  
> 
> How much use are FIBs still these days?  Half of the original use
> cases I can think of could easily and better be overcome by using
> vnet jails with a physical or virtual interface (e.g, vcc) being
> delegated to the vnet.
> 
> I wonder if anyone on FreeBSD is using FIBs to actually have
> multi-FIB forwardig but that very little touches your use case apart
> from the mgmt which again can be factored out better (or inversely,
> factoring out the forwarding).
> 
> I would honestly know who and how FIBs are still in use today or if
> they should be put on a list to be removed for 16 (I assume I might be
> surprised).

That sounds pretty strange. The main FIB utilization is in routing area
and has nothing to do with jails at all (a router/firewall don't need
jails).

(not that I'm fine with FIB concept at all, but unfortunately that's
routing industry standard concept, and removing FIBs will make FreeBSD
lacking behind competitors here as it was before 6.x)

-- 
WBR, @nuclight