[quagga-dev 3663] Re: 0.98.4 bug report: files ospf_opaque.c, ospf_vty.c and ospf6_asbr.c

Andrew J. Schorr aschorr at telemetry-investments.com
Mon Sep 19 15:34:36 BST 2005

On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 10:31:48AM -0400, Andrew J. Schorr wrote:
> OK, so does something like the attached patch make sense?  Note that
> there is some disagreement in the existing code about how to represent
> a system route.  In zebra/zebra_vty.c:route_type_char, ZEBRA_ROUTE_SYSTEM
> maps to 'S', but in ripd/ripd.c, ripngd/ripngd.c, ospf6d/ospf6_zebra.c,
> and ospf6d/ospf6_asbr.c, it maps to 'X'.  Thoughts?

Also, there is disagreement on the right strings to use. 
In zebra/zebra_vty.c:route_type_str, ripng is shown as "rip",
and ospf6 is shown as "ospf", but in other places "ripng" and "ospf6".
Can we agree on canonical strings and chars for each route type?


More information about the Quagga-dev mailing list