[Xorp-hackers] BG 172

[Eddie Kohler]

Thanks P -- that is exactly what I had meant.

E


On Mar 21, 2006, at 11:46 AM, Pavlin Radoslavov wrote:

>> 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.
>
> I believe the point Eddie was trying to make is that someone
> accustomed with the current "set" command being used only to change
> values of single-value nodes will suddenly start seeing different
> behavior with the new "set" if we redefine a single-value node as a
> multi-value node.
>
> Yes, this could be a problem when using xorpsh, so at least we
> should try to avoid redefining a single-value node as a multi-value
> (or vice versa).
>
>> 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
>
> The first two commands will create two next-hop nodes: 172.16.1.1
> and 172.16.1.2.
> The third command will return a syntax error.
>
> Pavlin
> _______________________________________________
> Xorp-hackers mailing list
> Xorp-hackers@icir.org
> http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-hackers