[quagga-dev 5452] Re: [PATCH] RFC 2328, chap 8.1:

Andrew J. Schorr aschorr at telemetry-investments.com
Tue Jun 3 17:14:31 BST 2008

On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 05:01:01PM +0100, paul at clubi.ie wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jun 2008, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> >Oh yes, that would work for me. The only problem I got ATM is that 
> >once I enable unnumbered PtP, it stops working with our old zebra 
> >based ospf. That is a separate issue though that I need to think 
> >some more about. Maybe we will need an extra option for this or 
> >just do a local hack.
> An option would be good.
> If/when you have a complete patch for unnumbered support, then yself 
> and Andrew will meet, with pistols, at dawn, to determine the sense 
> of the option(s). ;)

I think there is no need for pistols.  I don't really care how
the configuration is expressed, as long as the flexibility is
there for the administrator to decide which behavior he/she wants
on each interface.  If we do not provide sufficient configuration
flexibility, then we may break backwards compatibility, and I think
that would be a bad way to go.  But other than that concern, I don't
care how this is configured, as long as it makes sense and provides
for all the possible configurations.


More information about the Quagga-dev mailing list