[quagga-dev 7209] Re: [PATCH 01/17] zebra: Initial RIB cleanup, and eliminate lots of redundant IPv4/IPv6 code.

paul at jakma.org paul at jakma.org
Thu Aug 20 17:18:05 BST 2009


On Thu, 20 Aug 2009, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:

> Exactly. In OSPF a nexthop is always an interface + optional 
> nexthop IP address. Would be good if you could express this too 
> when needed.

Sure, but that's an implementation detail. The route itself doesn't 
need that restriction added, as such.

>> Also, A must be on a multi-access link, otherwise you could just say
>> <I>.
>
> How about IP aliases on a link? There interface isn't enough.

On a PtP link? No gateway IP is needed. You just send the packet on 
the link - there's only one other host it can reach.

> Possibly, but how to know that this fits all uses? Why should not 
> the user have a choice? Perhaps the user just don't want to bother 
> with recursive routes, just turn on OSPF and it should work, right?

If we can pass on the route that way to the OS, yes. I'll keep the 
possibility in mind if I tinker on Zserv more or people supply 
patches.

I'm not going to address it now though.

> :), then you get it the way you want, thanks.

It seems easier to split it up myself. ;)

> How about the more controversial stuff: nexthop_calculation()?

I've applied and pushed the unnumber nexthop-calc, but not the 
oi-indexed-by-lsa-pos part.

regards,
-- 
Paul Jakma	paul at jakma.org	Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
To make an enemy, do someone a favor.



More information about the Quagga-dev mailing list