[quagga-dev 5947] Re: OSPF, passive interface question

paul at clubi.ie paul at clubi.ie
Thu Sep 11 18:35:29 BST 2008

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:

> ATM my own testing is on hold, but I am happy with it so far. Let's 
> see what Daniel Ng finds. On the other hand I expect some more 
> review comments. It is not clear to me if what is left in my tree 
> is acceptable w.r.t coding style, general approach, should 
> unnumbered be a flag like is now etc.

The series looks very good generally. :)

  - [ospfd] Add a question in ospf_nexthop_calculation():

    to answer: no it doesn't matter, if W is a network vertex then
    that implies V->W is a broadcast link.

- [ospfd] Add ospf_if_lookup_by_ifindex()

    why not fold this together with the patch that introduces use?

    next, if the use is going to be frequent (e.g. for every
    unnumbered link in the OSPF areas attached), then it really needs 
j  a better performing index, such as a hash.

- [ospfd] Update SPF calculation for unnumbered links

   I thought I had some concern about this ages ago, but can't
   remember, do you?

- [ospfd] Swap ISM_DR and ISM_DROther numeric constants

   did you look at:

 	grep 'ISM_.*[<>]' *.c


> No, that just meant that I reserve the right to rebase the series, 
> should I need to address any bugs or review comments before you 
> pull it. Once you have pulled it, it will die.

So I have to pull from a branch which is namespaced specifically so I 
know not to pull from it? ;)

I'm forgetful and so I have to try hard to avoid acquiring more bad 
habits. Please try help me..

Paul Jakma	paul at clubi.ie	paul at jakma.org	Key ID: 64A2FF6A
We are MicroSoft.  You will be assimilated.  Resistance is futile.
 	-- Attributed to B.G., Gill Bates

More information about the Quagga-dev mailing list