Re: per-FIB socket binding

Hi, 
here’s another user of fibs. Each of our servers have multiple fibs and jails with fibs. 
I like the proposed.
Santi 


> On 23 Dec 2024, at 16:46, Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Monday, December 23, 2024 7:23:35 PM UTC Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
> > On Sat, 21 Dec 2024, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
> > >> Any thoughts/comments?
> > >
> > > That all said with your opt-in approach if the code itself doesn't bring
> > > too many new complications I'd be happy with it (assuming FIBs still
> > > have a use case).
> >
> > Seems there's plenty people using multi-FIB in various scenarios still,
> > which is good to know.
> >
> > Go for it.
> 
> i've been thinking along these lines for a few years now, since my vm server is multi-fib. each interface has a fib, mostly zero. for incoming TCP SYNs, i'd like to carry that fib# into the resulting PCB so that that fib's routing table and especially its default route will be used for that connection. yes, i can do that with ipfw, and am in fact doing so now. however, that's crocky. i think defaulting to the interface FIB for connections created and maintained by the kernel should always happen -- not opt-in, not opt-out, just always. is it worth me sending a patch that does this or would it be considered controversial?
> 
> (making this happen for UDP is also interesting but is a separate matter since those servers already have to maintain socket-per-interface in order to get their source addresses to match the client's destination address.)
> 
> --
> Paul Vixie