[Xorp-hackers] OSPF auth...

[Hasso Tepper]

Pavlin Radoslavov wrote:
> The example you gave about RFC 2328 Appendix B is about changing
> protocol parameters. This is typically allowed when
> implementing/configuring a protocol.

No, these are architectural constants in the appendix B. Configurable 
constants are in the appendix C.

> The Cisco's change I am referring to is about a not-so elegant
> deviation from the spec.

But it's simple and just works. Almost zero chance you can shoot yourself 
into foot (unless you really try hard :).

> > I don't see the any need for such behaviour. I already said that I
> > take this kind of automatic dangerous.
>
> I understand that in your production environment (and probably
> everybody else's) you want strict control.
> With our solution we don't take this control away from you.

Yes, I understand it. No problem or objections here.

> This is more of a documentation issue.

It's always better to have clear and selfdescriptive commands. If it's 
just documentation issue, why not have just "coa 0" instead of "create 
ospf area 0.0.0.0"? Much less typing etc ;).

Note, that this kind of cli's exist actually. I had to do some work with 
cli where all commands were just this kind of five letters "words" with 
argument. It did the job, but it doesn't mean that I enjoyed it ;).
 
> Good question. I guess the original idea was to use them to obtain
> more verbose information about a configuration node.
> E.g., "help protocols ospf4 area" should provide you with detailed
> information about an OSPF area.
> However, the xorpsh doesn't implement this yet, so for the time
> being the "%help: long" statements are ignored.

OK, clear. Is it worth of effort to open enhancement request in bugzilla 
regarding this?


-- 
Hasso