[Xorp-hackers] static xrl interface calls

[Li Zhao]

Basically I am adding a new application process to the xorp linux router. That application requires xorp_static_routes running and it periodically 
updates the static routes through xrl interface API. Because it is a router, an administrator can easily configure CLI via command "delete protocol static" and it will end up with terminating xorp_static_routes and removing static routes from rib.
--- 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, 4:36 PM
> On 10/13/2009 12:22 PM, Li Zhao
> wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> If your daemon communicates to xorp through xorpsh, it
> seems like it would work OK.
> 
> A user could always screw something by manually messing
> with xorpsh (or
> doing worse things on the linux command-line, for
> example).
> 
> Maybe you are worried about concurrent xorpsh usage by your
> script and
> a user?  I'm not sure how that would work..but I can
> imagine it being
> a problem.
> 
> Thanks,
> Ben
> 
> -- 
> Ben Greear <greearb at candelatech.com>
> Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com
> 
>