[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