WG: [Xorp-hackers] Bugzilla #161
'Kristian Larsson'
kristian@juniks.net
Thu, 8 Sep 2005 17:00:38 +0200
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 01:41:01PM +0200, "Patrick Preuß" wrote:
> > --- Ursprüngliche Nachricht ---
> > Von: 'Kristian Larsson' <kristian@juniks.net>
> > An: Patrick Preuss <deathdealer@gmx.net>
> > Kopie: xorp-hackers@xorp.org
> > Betreff: Re: WG: [Xorp-hackers] Bugzilla #161
> > Datum: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 13:36:31 +0200
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 12:05:35PM +0200, Patrick Preuss wrote:
> > > Hello Kristian,
> > >
> > > > Sorry for dual posts here but I couldn't confirm
> > > > this before as I did not have access to a xorp box
> > > > When doing show route table ipv4 unicast final I
> > > > see:
> > > > Xorp> show route table ipv4 unicast final
> > > > Network 10.0.0.0/24
> > > > Nexthop := 192.168.77.1
> > > > Metric := 0 Protocol := static Interface := eth0 Vif := eth0
> > > > Network 192.168.77.0/24
> > > > Nexthop := 192.168.77.90
> > > > Metric := 0 Protocol := connected Interface := eth0 Vif := eth0
> > > >
> > > > Isn't that information enough?
> > >
> > > Have used <TAB> or <?> for completing the line, I know there is a
> > problem
> > > with both in the current cvs, I've found the point for <?> completion so
> > far
> > > It is in the cli_command.cc there are two entrys with <Enter> for the
> > <?> I
> > > have found the formatting line, for the <Tab> not jet.
> >
> > <?> gives me an extra blank line
> > Xorp> show route table ipv4 unicast final ?
> > Possible completions:
> > <[Enter]> Execute this command
> >
> > brief Show IPv4 winning routes
> > | Pipe through a command
> >
> > while <tab> is missing one :
> > Xorp> show route table ipv4 unicast final
> > `final' is ambiguous.
> > Possible completions:
> > <[Enter]> Execute this command brief Show IPv4 winning routes
> > | Pipe through a command
> >
> > It seems that the missing blank line exist
> > on every node that are both executable and
> > have sub-nodes.
> >
> > Patrick, I checked the code regarding administrative
> > distance and protocol. I now see what you mean and I
> > agree that it's not a pretty solution. There should be
> > something like origin: ospf.0
> > where ospf.0 would be your first ospf process. Later
> > when we (cause we will :) ) support several routing
> > processes it would just use a different number.
> > Just my $0.02
> >
> > Regards,
> > Kristian
> >
>
> Hello Kristian,
>
> can you try the attactched cli_command.cc should go the dir cli. i think no
> it should work fine.
Works!
Good job. Should be included in the CVS!
//Kristian