[quagga-dev 3664] Re: 0.98.4 bug report: files ospf_opaque.c, ospf_vty.c and ospf6_asbr.c

Hasso Tepper hasso at estpak.ee
Mon Sep 19 18:05:24 BST 2005

Andrew J. Schorr wrote:
> 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?

Good point. There is no problem with rip routes, but ospf ... In theory
OSPFv3 can carry IPv4 routing info (draft-ietf-ospf-mt-ospfv3) and
although it's not supported yet ... I'd go for ripng and ospf6.

Hasso Tepper
Elion Enterprises Ltd.
WAN administrator

More information about the Quagga-dev mailing list