[Xorp-hackers] Show commands

[Mike Horn]

Hi,

I have been wathcing the ideas float around about the interface
configurations.  Quick question, if you do a compile time option would that
require you to recompile the software each time you added an interface to an
existing configuration?

-mike 

-----Original Message-----
From: xorp-hackers-admin@icir.org [mailto:xorp-hackers-admin@icir.org] On
Behalf Of xorp-hackers-request@icir.org
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 1:02 PM
To: xorp-hackers@icir.org
Subject: [Bulk] Xorp-hackers digest, Vol 1 #219 - 3 msgs

Send Xorp-hackers mailing list submissions to
	xorp-hackers@icir.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-hackers
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	xorp-hackers-request@icir.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	xorp-hackers-admin@icir.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
"Re: Contents of Xorp-hackers digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: show commands ('Kristian Larsson')
   2. Re: show commands ('Kristian Larsson')
   3. show commands (Patrick Preuss)

--__--__--

Message: 1
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 21:14:01 +0200
From: "'Kristian Larsson'" <kristian@juniks.net>
To: Patrick Preuss <deathdealer@gmx.net>
Cc: xorp-hackers@xorp.org
Subject: Re: [Xorp-hackers] show commands

On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 06:48:32PM +0200, Patrick Preuss wrote:
> > Compile-time option?
> > Perhaps a little flag saying if the interface has been configured in 
> > XORP or not?
> 
> Yes I would argue in the same manner for production it would Be useful 
> to see all interfaces in the system.
> 
> I think it would be nice to have something like a private config, 
> Witch define such things like: show all interfaces, interface naming 
> convetions, and such things witch "should/could" not be changed during 
> "runtime"
I beleive the easiest thing would be compile time options. In my environment
I would compile XORP on one machine and then distribute it to all my
routers. By setting the appropriate compile-options I can affect the
behaviour of XORP and being compile-time options I'm sure they won't change
thus reducing number of things that can go wrong on my production machines.

Introducing a secondary configuration file increases the complexity quite a
lot imho.

   Kristian.

--__--__--

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 14:11:37 +0200
From: "'Kristian Larsson'" <kristian@juniks.net>
To: Patrick Preuss <deathdealer@gmx.net>
Cc: xorp-hackers@xorp.org
Subject: Re: [Xorp-hackers] show commands

On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 07:54:00AM +0200, Patrick Preuss wrote:
> 
> Hello Kristian,
> 
> > I beleive the easiest thing would be compile time options. In my 
> > environment I would compile XORP on one machine and then distribute 
> > it to all my routers. By setting the appropriate compile-options I 
> > can affect the behaviour of XORP and being compile-time options I'm 
> > sure they won't change thus reducing number of things that can go 
> > wrong on my production machines.
> >
> > Introducing a secondary configuration file increases the complexity 
> > quite a lot imho.
> 
> You are right it would increase the complexity a lot, but what I want 
> to say
> 
> It would be nice to have a switch, maybe commandline, with witch you 
> can chose the behavior, so you can use the same binarys for production 
> and testing, it would ensure if you have problems with a version it 
> will be the same version;-)
I don't beleive these kind of options would change between your production
boxes and test boxes.
Essentially a testing machine is exactly the same as a production machine
though it's not connected to anything important.

Then there's the lab machines with which you might want to simulate whole
networks using Click/IMUNES, these would need a totally different version.

Although I see your point I still hold on to my previous opinion.
Compile-time options are easy to implement and will cover the mayority of
scenarios.

   Kristian.

--__--__--

Message: 3
From: "Patrick Preuss" <deathdealer@gmx.net>
To: "'Kristian Larsson'" <kristian@juniks.net>
Cc: <xorp-hackers@xorp.org>
Subject: [Xorp-hackers] show commands
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 17:34:56 +0200



> I don't beleive these kind of options would change between your 
> production boxes and test boxes.
> Essentially a testing machine is exactly the same as a production 
> machine though it's not connected to anything important.
>
> Then there's the lab machines with which you might want to simulate 
> whole networks using Click/IMUNES, these would need a totally 
> different version.
>
> Although I see your point I still hold on to my previous opinion. 
> Compile-time options are easy to implement and will cover the mayority 
> of scenarios.

Yes you are right it would cover most of the scenarios, And it would
relative easy to manage.

Regards 
	Patrick Preuss




--__--__--

_______________________________________________
Xorp-hackers mailing list
Xorp-hackers@icir.org
http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-hackers


End of Xorp-hackers Digest