[quagga-dev 10849] Re: [PATCH 2/4] zebra: quagga-re-onlink-support.patch

James Li jli at cumulusnetworks.com
Thu Oct 24 20:58:47 BST 2013

On 10/24/13 7:45 AM, Christian Franke wrote:
> On 10/24/2013 12:44 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>> Dinesh G Dutt <ddutt at cumulusnetworks.com> wrote on 2013/10/24 06:06:43:
>>> quagga-re-onlink-support.patch
>> I recall this patch had some doubts in the past, I found my own comments
>> in quagga-dev 9519
> Have you had a look at quagga-dev 10576? I feel that this general
> approach might be a bit better as it doesn't yet introduce another
> nexthop type, but there hasn't been all that much feedback on comparing
> the two.
> Quagga master supports NEXTHOP_IPV4_IFINDEX properly, so the only thing
> that still has to be done on top of this patch would be adding a way
> that allows routing daemons to set the NEXTHOP_FLAG_ONLINK via the IPC
> protocol. (I only required that flag internally in zebra to address the
> case of some recursive routes. Therefore, the patch didn't add a way to
> set that flag via IPC, that shouldn't be too complicated though.)
> -Christian

Our main concern is unnumbered interface support which requires onlink 
support. At the time of the development, this diff was the only one 
available and worked fine. I was under the impression that since it's in 
Quagga-RE branch, it's already accepted, just a matter of merging.

If this is not the case, could you comment w.r.t your patch and Denis's 
patch? Which one is chosen? Is there a conclusion? Also do you have 
plans to extend the ONLINK flag to IPC protocol?


> _______________________________________________
> Quagga-dev mailing list
> Quagga-dev at lists.quagga.net
> http://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev

More information about the Quagga-dev mailing list