Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 0/3] Proposal for VRF-lite

From: Nicolas Dichtel <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 16:55:38 +0200

Le 09/06/2015 16:21, David Ahern a écrit :
> Hi Nicolas:
>
> On 6/9/15 2:58 AM, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
>> I'm not really in favor of the name 'vrf'. This term is very
>> controversial and
>> having a consensus of what is/contains a 'vrf' is quite impossible.
>> There was already a lot of discussions about this topic on quagga ml
>> that show
>> that everybody has a different opinion about this term ;-)
>
> Are you referring to this thread?
> https://lists.quagga.net/pipermail/quagga-dev/2014-November/011795.html
No, there were recent discussions on quagga about that subject. Here is some
non-exhaustive pointers:
https://lists.quagga.net/pipermail/quagga-dev/2015-May/012581.html
https://lists.quagga.net/pipermail/quagga-dev/2015-May/012630.html
https://lists.quagga.net/pipermail/quagga-dev/2015-June/012715.html

Note the last pointer also explains why it was called MRF by Cumulus.

Regards,
Nicolas