[Xorp-hackers] ospf4 and ospf6 can not apply export policy at the same time

[Li Zhao]

Who flattened the policy statements into these instrunction terms?

--- On Wed, 12/16/09, Li Zhao <lizhaous2000 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: Li Zhao <lizhaous2000 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Xorp-hackers] ospf4 and ospf6 can not apply export policy at the same time
> To: "Bruce Simpson" <bms at incunabulum.net>
> Cc: xorp-hackers at xorp.org
> Date: Wednesday, December 16, 2009, 1:46 PM
> a correction: the second policy
> exited from runTerm in function IvExec::Visit(OnFalseExit
> &).
> 
> --- On Wed, 12/16/09, Li Zhao <lizhaous2000 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > From: Li Zhao <lizhaous2000 at yahoo.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Xorp-hackers] ospf4 and ospf6 can not
> apply export policy at the same time
> > To: "Bruce Simpson" <bms at incunabulum.net>
> > Cc: xorp-hackers at xorp.org
> > Date: Wednesday, December 16, 2009, 1:24 PM
> > I understand how these tags are used
> > now. The problem for redistributing static routes
> into
> > both ospf4 and ospf6 was when static_routes prepared
> routes
> > before pushing the routes into the rib.
> > in IvExec::run, there will be two policies. The first
> one
> > is always ospf6 policy and second is ospf4 policy.
> > when terms are processed, there are 8 instructions for
> each
> > policy to be run.
> > Somehow the second (ospf4) policy exited from running
> terms
> > in function 
> > IvExec::Visit(NaryInstr &) because t->val() ==
> > false.
> > So the routes had one tag, which is ospf4 tag, left
> out!
> > I am wondering why the two similar policies have
> different
> > t->val().
> > 
> > Li
> > 
> > --- On Fri, 12/11/09, Li Zhao <lizhaous2000 at yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > From: Li Zhao <lizhaous2000 at yahoo.com>
> > > Subject: Re: [Xorp-hackers] ospf4 and ospf6 can
> not
> > apply export policy at the same time
> > > To: "Bruce Simpson" <bms at incunabulum.net>
> > > Cc: xorp-hackers at xorp.org
> > > Date: Friday, December 11, 2009, 1:32 PM
> > > Bruce, what does a PolicyTag mean?
> > > e.g. RIB was asked to add <ospfv2, tag=7>
> and
> > > <ospfv3, tag=8> into _policy_redist_map.
> How
> > the
> > > source protocol
> > > (e.g. static_routes)
> > > uses that tag to mark routes I do not quite
> > understand.
> > > 
> > > Thanks.
> > > 
> > > Li
> > > 
> > > --- On Mon, 11/30/09, Bruce Simpson <bms at incunabulum.net>
> > > wrote:
> > > 
> > > > From: Bruce Simpson <bms at incunabulum.net>
> > > > Subject: Re: [Xorp-hackers] ospf4 and ospf6
> can
> > not
> > > apply export policy at the same time
> > > > To: "Li Zhao" <lizhaous2000 at yahoo.com>
> > > > Cc: xorp-hackers at xorp.org
> > > > Date: Monday, November 30, 2009, 6:05 PM
> > > > Li Zhao wrote:
> > > > > I noticed that if both ospf4 and ospf6
> > > redistribute
> > > > static routes, ospf4 will fail to
> redistribute
> > static
> > > > routes. This is a bug.
> > > > >   
> > > > 
> > > > Can you please raise this on XORP's Trac on
> > > SourceForge,
> > > > preferably with an appropriate test case,
> so
> > someone
> > > can get
> > > > around to looking at it when there's free
> time to
> > do
> > > so?
> > > > 
> > > > thanks,
> > > > BMS
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >       
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Xorp-hackers mailing list
> > > Xorp-hackers at icir.org
> > > http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-hackers
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> >       
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Xorp-hackers mailing list
> > Xorp-hackers at icir.org
> > http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-hackers
> > 
> 
> 
>       
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xorp-hackers mailing list
> Xorp-hackers at icir.org
> http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-hackers
>