[Xorp-hackers] static xrl interface calls

Li Zhao lizhaous2000 at yahoo.com
Tue Oct 13 12:22:25 PDT 2009


That was my first plan. But I thought I do not want unnecessay complexities related to config control, so I tried to first ask rtrmgr to start static_routes, then use the channel between daemon and static_routes directly to update static routes. But a big problem is that if a user use xorpsh CLI to "delete protocol static", then my daemon will not only lose the channel to static_routes which is terminated by CLI, but also will lose all the static routes installed by my daemon. Basically xorpsh CLI sessions can not cooperate with my daemon.

I am still looking for a good design.

--- On Tue, 10/13/09, Ben Greear <greearb at candelatech.com> wrote:

> From: Ben Greear <greearb at candelatech.com>
> Subject: Re: [Xorp-hackers] static xrl interface calls
> To: "Li Zhao" <lizhaous2000 at yahoo.com>
> Cc: xorp-hackers at icir.org
> Date: Tuesday, October 13, 2009, 2:51 PM
> On 10/13/2009 11:37 AM, Li Zhao
> wrote:
> >
> > I am studying the code so I have not coded anything.
> What I am working on is to write a control plane process
> which will add and delete some special static routes. These
> static routes can be redistributed by ospf etc. The the new
> daemon will use the xrl interface calls. I do not want this
> process talk to rtrmgr because the config tree structure is
> adding unnecessary complixity. This new process can be
> started by rtrmgr when rtrmgr starts. Then I want this new
> process update the static routes directly to
> xorp_static_routes. Then the problem is how to start
> xorp_static_routes and its depending processes like
> fea/fib/policy and make them working properly with xrl
> finder. This is a really a pain for me because I have just
> started to learn xorp for a few weeks.
> 
> Can you just have the control plane process call xorpsh to
> have it update
> routes in the existing static-routes logic?  I've used
> xorpsh in similar manner
> to update IPs, interfaces, etc and it has worked reasonably
> well (after I fixed
> a lot of bugs with dynamic interfaces!)
> 
> > I am thinking if there is a simple API by which a
> process other than xorpsh can ask rtrmgr to start
> static_routes.
> >
> > Another problem. Commit is taking awkawrdly long
> time.
> 
> I fixed the commit problem in my tree:
> 
> http://www.candelatech.com/oss/xorp-ct.html
> 
> I get commit times of about 0.10 to 0.20 seconds now
> (counting launching xorpsh).
> 
> Thanks,
> Ben
> 
> -- 
> Ben Greear <greearb at candelatech.com>
> Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com
> 
> 


      



More information about the Xorp-hackers mailing list