[Xorp-hackers] [Xorp-cvs] XORP cvs commit: xorp/etc/templatesxorp/static_routes xorp/xrl/interfaces xorp/xrl/targets
Mike Horn
mhorn at vyatta.com
Tue Jan 23 07:39:48 PST 2007
Hi all,
Pavlin - thanks for enhancing XORP! I do agree with Hasso that the current
implementation seems overly complex, plus I haven't heard the "term"
qualified route used in this context, so that may be confusing to users.
Another issue is that this solution appears to only work for a static route
backing up another static route. Most implementations use admin cost for
the static route metric which allows a static route to be created with a
higher admin cost than say OSPF. This is important for features like
dial-on-demand for failover protection.
-mike
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xorp-hackers-bounces at icir.org
> [mailto:xorp-hackers-bounces at icir.org] On Behalf Of Hasso Tepper
> Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 2:52 AM
> To: xorp-hackers at icir.org
> Cc: Pavlin Radoslavov
> Subject: Re: [Xorp-hackers] [Xorp-cvs] XORP cvs commit:
> xorp/etc/templatesxorp/static_routes xorp/xrl/interfaces
> xorp/xrl/targets
>
> Pavlin Radoslavov wrote:
> > Log message:
> > Implement support for floating static routes (i.e.,
> static routes
> > for the same prefix with different next hop and metrics).
> >
> > A floating static route (also called "qualified" by some router
> > vendors) can be added with a configuration like:
> >
> > protocols {
> > static {
> > route 10.10.0.0/16 {
> > next-hop: 1.1.1.1
> > metric: 1
> > qualified-next-hop 1.1.1.2 {
> > metric: 10
> > }
> > }
> > interface-route 10.30.30.0/24 {
> > next-hop-interface: "rl0"
> > next-hop-vif: "rl0"
> > next-hop-router: 1.2.3.4
> > metric: 1
> > qualified-next-hop-interface rl0 {
> > qualified-next-hop-vif rl0 {
> > next-hop-router: 5.6.7.8
> > metric: 10
> > }
> > }
> > }
> > }
> > }
>
> Why so complicated? It's already UI nightmare, you shouldn't
> make it worse.
>
> protocols {
> static {
> route 10.10.0.0/16 {
> next-hop 1.1.1.1 {
> metric: 1
> }
> next-hop 1.1.1.2 {
> metric: 10
> }
> }
> interface-route 10.30.30.0/24 {
> next-hop 1.2.3.4 {
> next-hop-interface: "rl0"
> next-hop-vif: "rl0"
> metric: 1
> }
> next-hop 5.6.7.8 {
> next-hop-interface: "rl0"
> next-hop-vif: "rl0"
> metric: 1
> }
> }
> }
> }
>
> Note, that I actually don't understand why there is separate
> interface route node at all. It should be same route note
> just handled in the backend - if there is interface
> specified, it's interface route, if there isn't interface
> specified, it isn't interface route.
>
> protocols {
> static {
> route 10.10.0.0/16 {
> next-hop 1.1.1.1 {
> metric: 1
> }
> next-hop 1.1.1.2 {
> interface "rl0" {
> vif: "rl0"
> }
> metric: 10
> }
> }
> }
> }
>
>
> with my best wishes,
>
> --
> Hasso Tepper
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xorp-hackers mailing list
> Xorp-hackers at icir.org
> http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-hackers
>
More information about the Xorp-hackers
mailing list