[Xorp-hackers] BG 172

[Hasso Tepper]

Eddie Kohler wrote:
> > set route static route4 10.0.0.0/24 next-hop 172.16.1.1
> > set route static route4 10.0.0.0/24 next-hop 172.16.1.2
>
> It is really problematic when code or configuration statements silently
> change meaning from one release to the next!

No, it isn't problematic. Xorp doesn't handle non-unique leaf nodes at all 
at the moment, so there is nothing that breaks really. Policy with new 
set command should be clear: it must change unique nodes and add 
non-unique ones.

As sidenote (it shouldn't matter any more), what would happen in 
hypotetical case (if multiple nexthops would be supported) with current 
set behaviour?

create route static route4 10.0.0.0/24 next-hop 172.16.1.1
create route static route4 10.0.0.0/24 next-hop 172.16.1.2
set route static route4 10.0.0.0/24 next-hop 172.16.1.3

> So, followon question.  Can you enumerate those places in the
> configuration tree that are single-value now, but are likely to become
> multi-value in future?  If so then they could be specially marked so
> they behave like multi-value even now.  That is, if you entered the
> above statements, you would
>
> get:
>  > set route static route4 10.0.0.0/24 next-hop 172.16.1.1
>
> [OK]
>
>  > set route static route4 10.0.0.0/24 next-hop 172.16.1.2
>
> [ERROR: eventually you will be able to add multiple next-hops for a
> given route, but for now, you must delete the old next-hop before
> setting a new one.]
>
> Does this make sense?

IMHO no. Please keep clippy attitude [1] away of my routers ;).


[1] - http://www.gryniewicz.com/dang/blog/wp-content/vim.gif

-- 
Hasso