Ascend Archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (ASCEND) Virtual IP routing / IP Navigator
At 03:29 PM 7/30/98 -0400, Phillip Vandry wrote:
>> >The Virtual IP routing (splitting the router into multiple independant
>> >logical routers) sounds like a very cool, but also very unconventional
>> >feature.
>>
>> If progress in routers is unconventional, then yes.
>
>(As far as I know) no router in history has every had more than one
>independant routing table. Now we are talking about having multiple
>virtual route tables. Like I said, very cool feature, but you have to
>admit it was no one line code tweak :-)
Actually, the TNT in 7.0 also has Virtual Routing albeit of a cruder form
than IP Navigator. I'd be surprised if some other vendors haven't done this.
>> >I guess this is implemented by assigning each interface on the router
>> >(perhaps an ISDN connection, an Ethernet interface, or a Frame/ATM
>> >PVC) to exactly one of the multiple different routing groups.
>>
>> Not to exactly one. Individual routes can be assigned to a given physical
>> or virtual circuit. But since they are virtual routes, identical addresses
>> can co-exist on the same physical network. In other words, a VPN.
>
>If each interface is not "assigned" to a virtual router, then, for
>packets arriving over that interface, how does the box know which
>route table to use to forward it?
Each IP interface (physical or virtual) does have access to a given route
table.
Matt Holdrege http://www.ascend.com matt@ascend.com
++ Ascend Users Mailing List ++
To unsubscribe: send unsubscribe to ascend-users-request@bungi.com
To get FAQ'd: <http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq>
References: