mysidia at gmail.com
Wed Jun 2 07:08:26 UTC 2010
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Andrey Khomyakov
<khomyakov.andrey at gmail.com> wrote:
>Seems like to do that I'd have to run a software router on a VM that would
For a VM router (for performance reasons is different than what i'd
suggest for a generic software router), I would suggest picking an
off-the-shelf OS that Vmxnet2 or Vmxnet3 drivers are available for,
see KB1001805, make sure to install the VM tools, change vNICs' type
to vmx. Standard OS + quagga, openbgpd, or other. Vyatta should
be great, if you are able to compile the vmx drivers for it.
Hopefully you are not planning to forward high-PPS traffic through a
single VM; vNICs are potentially a serious bottleneck in that
If traffic is not trivial, I would suggest using third-party
next-hop routing, that is, with VM-based routers removed from
forwarding path, by acting as route server, or announcing as next-hop
another (real) third-party router's IP instead one of its own IPs
(requiring all 3 routers to share a subnet).
Or investigate layer 2 extension of an upstream subnet via L2TPv3
pseudo-wire service, or Cisco OTV, etc....
then design failover scenario to not require a VM involvement.
Another thought is OSPF /32 host advertisements on some 'beacon'
VM(s), with tracked routes for 'virtual subnet' selection, instead
of a "router" VM.
Those are some vague thoughts... I'm just saying, almost anything,
other than having a VM forward packets for subnets, if it is
avoidable, even tunnelling -- on a non-VM router... :)
More information about the NANOG