[Xorp-users] Is it possible to configure the NAT on XORP??
Atanu Ghosh
atanu at ICSI.Berkeley.EDU
Mon Sep 17 08:01:14 PDT 2007
Hi,
The getting started web page (http://www.xorp.org/getting_started.html)
contains examples of basic protocol configurations.
Atanu.
>>>>> "sanjeev" == sanjeev kumar <ror.sanjeev at gmail.com> writes:
sanjeev> Hi, I want to configure the NATing on XORP,but i do not
sanjeev> know how ..could u please suggest me some steps. One more
sanjeev> thing : I want to test OSPF on two machines,both of them
sanjeev> running XORP router..instead of say..i want to connect two
sanjeev> machines back to back,then want to configure OSPF..Is it
sanjeev> possible and provide me some guidance. Thanks... Sanjeev
sanjeev> On 9/14/07, xorp-users-request at xorp.org <
sanjeev> xorp-users-request at xorp.org> wrote:
sanjeev> Send Xorp-users mailing list submissions to
sanjeev> xorp-users at xorp.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the
sanjeev> World Wide Web, visit
sanjeev> http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-user
sanjeev> s or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help'
sanjeev> to xorp-users-request at xorp.org You can reach the person
sanjeev> managing the list at xorp-users-owner at xorp.org When
sanjeev> replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more
sanjeev> specific than "Re: Contents of Xorp-users digest..."
sanjeev> Today's Topics: 1. Re: Questions on OSPF
sanjeev> (kristian at spritelink.net) 2. Re: Questions on OSPF (Atanu
sanjeev> Ghosh) 3. Re: Questions on OSPF ( kristian at spritelink.net)
sanjeev> 4. Re: Questions on OSPF (Atanu Ghosh) 5. Re: Questions on
sanjeev> OSPF (kristian at spritelink.net) 6. Re: Unreachable default
sanjeev> route. (Pavlin Radoslavov)
sanjeev> -------------------------------------------------------------------
sanjeev> --- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 20:52:03 +0200 From:
sanjeev> <kristian at spritelink.net > Subject: Re: [Xorp-users]
sanjeev> Questions on OSPF To: atanu at ICSI.Berkeley.EDU Cc: xorp
sanjeev> <xorp-users at xorp.org> Message-ID: <
sanjeev> 4cfe4c3ba67b049473b1d94a88052842 at Mail.SpriteLink.NET>
sanjeev> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Thu, 13 Sep
sanjeev> 2007 11:51:32 -0700, Atanu Ghosh < atanu at icsi.berkeley.edu>
sanjeev> wrote:
>>>>>>> "Kristian" == Kristian Larsson <kristian at spritelink.net >
sanjeev> writes:
>>
Kristian> Hansi wrote:
>> >> Hello All,
>> >>
>> >> I'm currently learning how to configure OSPFv2 on two XORP >>
>> machines just to establish adjacency with one another. In
sanjeev> a p2p
>> >> link type, is it still necessary to explicitly set the
sanjeev> 'neighbor'
>> >> parameter of each machine before adjacency is established? >>
>> Furthermore, would it be possible to set the router-id to
sanjeev> its
>> >> loopback address? instead of say.. the ip address of the >>
>> interface on which ospf will be used?
>>
Kristian> The neighbor command is only useful if you are
sanjeev> using a
Kristian> medium on which the routers cannot broadcast and
sanjeev> thus
Kristian> cannot discover each other. If you're using
sanjeev> ethernet
Kristian> (which I presume from your NIC names) you do not
sanjeev> have to
Kristian> use the neighbor statements. I would advice
sanjeev> configuring
Kristian> the interfaces as link-type p2p as this avoids DR
sanjeev> election
Kristian> and unnecessary CPU load.
>> I am fairly sure that it is necessary to use the neighbour
sanjeev> statements. Are you serious? I haven't used the XORP
sanjeev> code in quite some time now.. but at least I thought XORP
sanjeev> implemented the OSPF standard. AFAIK, that includes being
sanjeev> able to discover neighbors and turn up adjacencies to
sanjeev> them. Is this not the case? Observe that he is running an
sanjeev> Ethernet point-to-point link, ie, it is not a non-broadcast
sanjeev> medium. Or are you saying that you can't do link-type p2p
sanjeev> without configuring neighbours ? -K
sanjeev> ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Thu, 13 Sep
sanjeev> 2007 12:18:42 -0700 From: Atanu Ghosh
sanjeev> <atanu at ICSI.Berkeley.EDU > Subject: Re: [Xorp-users]
sanjeev> Questions on OSPF To: kristian at spritelink.net Cc: xorp
sanjeev> <xorp-users at xorp.org> Message-ID: <
sanjeev> 6353.1189711122 at tigger.icir.org>
>>>>>> "kristian" == kristian <kristian at spritelink.net > writes:
kristian> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 11:51:32 -0700, Atanu Ghosh
kristian> <atanu at icsi.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Kristian" == Kristian Larsson <
sanjeev> kristian at spritelink.net>
>>>>>>>> writes:
>>>
Kristian> Hansi wrote:
>>> >> Hello All,
>>> >>
>>> >> I'm currently learning how to configure OSPFv2 on two
sanjeev> XORP >>
>>> machines just to establish adjacency with one another. In a
sanjeev> p2p
>>> >> link type, is it still necessary to explicitly set the
>>> 'neighbor' >> parameter of each machine before adjacency is
>>> established? >> Furthermore, would it be possible to set
sanjeev> the
>>> router-id to its >> loopback address? instead of say.. the
sanjeev> ip
>>> address of the >> interface on which ospf will be used?
>>>
Kristian> The neighbor command is only useful if you are using
sanjeev> a
Kristian> medium on which the routers cannot broadcast and thus
Kristian> cannot discover each other. If you're using ethernet
Kristian> (which I presume from your NIC names) you do not have
sanjeev> to
Kristian> use the neighbor statements. I would advice
sanjeev> configuring
Kristian> the interfaces as link-type p2p as this avoids DR
sanjeev> election
Kristian> and unnecessary CPU load.
>>> I am fairly sure that it is necessary to use the neighbour
>>> statements.
kristian> Are you serious? I haven't used the XORP code in
sanjeev> quite
kristian> some time now.. but at least I thought XORP
sanjeev> implemented
kristian> the OSPF standard. AFAIK, that includes being able to
kristian> discover neighbors and turn up adjacencies to them.
sanjeev> Is
kristian> this not the case? Observe that he is running an
sanjeev> Ethernet
kristian> point-to-point link, ie, it is not a non-broadcast
sanjeev> medium.
kristian> Or are you saying that you can't do link-type p2p
sanjeev> without
kristian> configuring neighbours ?
sanjeev> If the link-type is set to "broadcast" then the
sanjeev> neighbours will be correctly discovered. If the link-type
sanjeev> is set to "p2p" (Point-to-point) or "p2m"
sanjeev> (Point-to-multipoint) then it is necessary to configure the
sanjeev> neighbours. It has been argued that it should not be
sanjeev> necessary to configure the neighbours if the routers are
sanjeev> connected via a true Point-to-point link, but unfortunately
sanjeev> even in this case it is necessary to configure the
sanjeev> neighbour. Atanu. ------------------------------ Message:
sanjeev> 3 Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 21:31:49 +0200 From:
sanjeev> <kristian at spritelink.net> Subject: Re: [Xorp-users]
sanjeev> Questions on OSPF To: atanu at ICSI.Berkeley.EDU Cc: xorp <
sanjeev> xorp-users at xorp.org> Message-ID:
sanjeev> <93a9e57afbb58e1bf4d6d68740135f89 at Mail.SpriteLink.NET>
sanjeev> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Thu, 13 Sep
sanjeev> 2007 12:18:42 -0700, Atanu Ghosh <atanu at icsi.berkeley.edu>
sanjeev> wrote:
>>>>>>> "kristian" == kristian < kristian at spritelink.net> writes:
>>
kristian> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 11:51:32 -0700, Atanu Ghosh
kristian> <atanu at icsi.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>> >>>>>>> "Kristian" == Kristian Larsson
sanjeev> <kristian at spritelink.net>
>> >>>>>>> writes:
>> >>
Kristian> Hansi wrote:
>> >> >> Hello All,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'm currently learning how to configure OSPFv2 on two
sanjeev> XORP >>
>> >> machines just to establish adjacency with one another. In
sanjeev> a p2p
>> >> >> link type, is it still necessary to explicitly set the >>
>> 'neighbor' >> parameter of each machine before adjacency
sanjeev> is
>> >> established? >> Furthermore, would it be possible to set
sanjeev> the
>> >> router-id to its >> loopback address? instead of say.. the
sanjeev> ip
>> >> address of the >> interface on which ospf will be used?
>> >>
Kristian> The neighbor command is only useful if you are
sanjeev> using a
Kristian> medium on which the routers cannot broadcast and
sanjeev> thus
Kristian> cannot discover each other. If you're using
sanjeev> ethernet
Kristian> (which I presume from your NIC names) you do not
sanjeev> have to
Kristian> use the neighbor statements. I would advice
sanjeev> configuring
Kristian> the interfaces as link-type p2p as this avoids DR
sanjeev> election
Kristian> and unnecessary CPU load.
>> >> I am fairly sure that it is necessary to use the
sanjeev> neighbour
>> >> statements.
>>
kristian> Are you serious? I haven't used the XORP code in
sanjeev> quite
kristian> some time now.. but at least I thought XORP
sanjeev> implemented
kristian> the OSPF standard. AFAIK, that includes being able
sanjeev> to
kristian> discover neighbors and turn up adjacencies to them.
sanjeev> Is
kristian> this not the case? Observe that he is running an
sanjeev> Ethernet
kristian> point-to-point link, ie, it is not a non-broadcast
sanjeev> medium.
kristian> Or are you saying that you can't do link-type p2p
sanjeev> without
kristian> configuring neighbours ?
>> If the link-type is set to "broadcast" then the neighbours will
sanjeev> be
>> correctly discovered. If the link-type is set to "p2p"
sanjeev> (Point-to-point)
>> or "p2m" (Point-to-multipoint) then it is necessary to configure
sanjeev> the
>> neighbours. It has been argued that it should not be necessary to
>> configure the neighbours if the routers are connected via a true
>> Point-to-point link, but unfortunately even in this case it is
sanjeev> necessary
>> to configure the neighbour.
sanjeev> Okey, that "kinda" makes sense. I apparently forgot or
sanjeev> missed the conversation on this. What I want to configure
sanjeev> with link-type p2p is not whether or not the router should
sanjeev> try to broadcast but if it should setup one of those
sanjeev> virtual router thingys, hehe. I'm not very familiar with
sanjeev> the terminology but (as you know) on a broadcast medium you
sanjeev> first have a DR selection and all that and then you're
sanjeev> gonna run your SPF. Since SPF can't handle the concept of a
sanjeev> broadcast medium it creates a "virtual router" to represent
sanjeev> the broadcast medium and connects all routers in that
sanjeev> broadcast domain as adjacencies to the virtual router.
sanjeev> When I configure 'isis network point-to-point' on a Cisco
sanjeev> router I expect it to not setup one of these "virtual
sanjeev> routers" in it's SPF topology. And this is different with
sanjeev> XORP? Perhaps the increase in simplicity to the SPF
sanjeev> topology that 'isis network point-to-point' brings is so
sanjeev> small that it's negligable. I think SPF runs take in the
sanjeev> order of 10ms or so for a network with a couple of hundred
sanjeev> routers on a normal routing engine these days. -K
sanjeev> ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Thu, 13 Sep
sanjeev> 2007 14:58:01 -0700 From: Atanu Ghosh <
sanjeev> atanu at ICSI.Berkeley.EDU> Subject: Re: [Xorp-users]
sanjeev> Questions on OSPF To: kristian at spritelink.net Cc: xorp
sanjeev> <xorp-users at xorp.org > Message-ID:
sanjeev> <44891.1189720681 at tigger.icir.org>
>>>>>> "kristian" == kristian < kristian at spritelink.net> writes:
kristian> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 12:18:42 -0700, Atanu Ghosh
kristian> <atanu at icsi.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>>> "kristian" == kristian < kristian at spritelink.net>
sanjeev> writes:
>>>
kristian> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 11:51:32 -0700, Atanu Ghosh <
kristian> atanu at icsi.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>> "Kristian" == Kristian Larsson
sanjeev> <kristian at spritelink.net>
>>> >>>>>>> writes:
>>> >>
Kristian> Hansi wrote:
>>> >> >> Hello All,
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> I'm currently learning how to configure OSPFv2 on two
sanjeev> XORP
>>> >> >> machines just to establish adjacency with one another.
sanjeev> In a
>>> p2p >> >> link type, is it still necessary to explicitly set
sanjeev> the
>>> >> 'neighbor' >> parameter of each machine before adjacency
sanjeev> is >>
>>> established? >> Furthermore, would it be possible to set
sanjeev> the >>
>>> router-id to its >> loopback address? instead of say.. the
sanjeev> ip >>
>>> address of the >> interface on which ospf will be used?
>>> >>
Kristian> The neighbor command is only useful if you are using
sanjeev> a
Kristian> medium on which the routers cannot broadcast and thus
Kristian> cannot discover each other. If you're using ethernet
Kristian> (which I presume from your NIC names) you do not have
sanjeev> to
Kristian> use the neighbor statements. I would advice
sanjeev> configuring
Kristian> the interfaces as link-type p2p as this avoids DR
sanjeev> election
Kristian> and unnecessary CPU load.
>>> >> I am fairly sure that it is necessary to use the
sanjeev> neighbour >>
>>> statements.
>>>
kristian> Are you serious? I haven't used the XORP code in
sanjeev> quite
kristian> some time now.. but at least I thought XORP
sanjeev> implemented
kristian> the OSPF standard. AFAIK, that includes being able to
kristian> discover neighbors and turn up adjacencies to them.
sanjeev> Is
kristian> this not the case? Observe that he is running an
sanjeev> Ethernet
kristian> point-to-point link, ie, it is not a non-broadcast
sanjeev> medium.
kristian> Or are you saying that you can't do link-type p2p
sanjeev> without
kristian> configuring neighbours ?
>>> If the link-type is set to "broadcast" then the neighbours
sanjeev> will
>>> be correctly discovered. If the link-type is set to "p2p"
>>> (Point-to-point) or "p2m" (Point-to-multipoint) then it is
>>> necessary to configure the neighbours. It has been argued
sanjeev> that it
>>> should not be necessary to configure the neighbours if the
>>> routers are connected via a true Point-to-point link, but
>>> unfortunately even in this case it is necessary to configure
sanjeev> the
>>> neighbour.
kristian> Okey, that "kinda" makes sense. I apparently forgot
sanjeev> or
kristian> missed the conversation on this. What I want to
sanjeev> configure
kristian> with link-type p2p is not whether or not the router
sanjeev> should
kristian> try to broadcast but if it should setup one of those
kristian> virtual router thingys, hehe. I'm not very familiar
sanjeev> with
kristian> the terminology but (as you know) on a broadcast
sanjeev> medium
kristian> you first have a DR selection and all that and then
sanjeev> you're
kristian> gonna run your SPF. Since SPF can't handle the
sanjeev> concept of
kristian> a broadcast medium it creates a "virtual router" to
kristian> represent the broadcast medium and connects all
sanjeev> routers in
kristian> that broadcast domain as adjacencies to the virtual
kristian> router. When I configure 'isis network
sanjeev> point-to-point' on
kristian> a Cisco router I expect it to not setup one of these
kristian> "virtual routers" in it's SPF topology. And this is
kristian> different with XORP?
sanjeev> Setting the link type to "broadcast" or "p2p" will
sanjeev> both result in the hello packets being broadcast, the
sanjeev> distinction is that if the link-type is set to "p2p" no DR
sanjeev> election will be attempted. The XORP OSPF behaves as
sanjeev> specified in the relevant RFCs and interoperates with other
sanjeev> OSPF implementations, the only difference is in
sanjeev> configuration of a "p2p" where we require the neighbour to
sanjeev> be specified, which as I mentioned before should not
sanjeev> strictly be necessary. Atanu.
sanjeev> ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Thu, 13 Sep
sanjeev> 2007 23:51:06 +0200 From: <kristian at spritelink.net>
sanjeev> Subject: Re: [Xorp-users] Questions on OSPF To:
sanjeev> atanu at ICSI.Berkeley.EDU Cc: xorp <xorp-users at xorp.org>
sanjeev> Message-ID: <
sanjeev> 5f7ec0f76565b4e68ed2457fdf8df3b8 at Mail.SpriteLink.NET>
sanjeev> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Thu, 13 Sep
sanjeev> 2007 14:58:01 -0700, Atanu Ghosh <atanu at icsi.berkeley.edu >
sanjeev> wrote:
>>>>>>> "kristian" == kristian <kristian at spritelink.net> writes:
>>
kristian> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 12:18:42 -0700, Atanu Ghosh
kristian> <atanu at icsi.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>> >>>>>>> "kristian" == kristian < kristian at spritelink.net>
sanjeev> writes:
>> >>
kristian> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 11:51:32 -0700, Atanu Ghosh
kristian> <atanu at icsi.berkeley.edu > wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>> "Kristian" == Kristian Larsson
sanjeev> <kristian at spritelink.net>
>> >> >>>>>>> writes:
>> >> >>
Kristian> Hansi wrote:
>> >> >> >> Hello All,
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I'm currently learning how to configure OSPFv2 on
sanjeev> two XORP
>> >> >> >> machines just to establish adjacency with one
sanjeev> another. In a
>> >> p2p >> >> link type, is it still necessary to explicitly
sanjeev> set the
>> >> >> 'neighbor' >> parameter of each machine before
sanjeev> adjacency is >>
>> >> established? >> Furthermore, would it be possible to set
sanjeev> the >>
>> >> router-id to its >> loopback address? instead of say.. the
sanjeev> ip >>
>> >> address of the >> interface on which ospf will be used?
>> >> >>
Kristian> The neighbor command is only useful if you are
sanjeev> using a
Kristian> medium on which the routers cannot broadcast and
sanjeev> thus
Kristian> cannot discover each other. If you're using
sanjeev> ethernet
Kristian> (which I presume from your NIC names) you do not
sanjeev> have to
Kristian> use the neighbor statements. I would advice
sanjeev> configuring
Kristian> the interfaces as link-type p2p as this avoids DR
sanjeev> election
Kristian> and unnecessary CPU load.
>> >> >> I am fairly sure that it is necessary to use the
sanjeev> neighbour >>
>> >> statements.
>> >>
kristian> Are you serious? I haven't used the XORP code in
sanjeev> quite
kristian> some time now.. but at least I thought XORP
sanjeev> implemented
kristian> the OSPF standard. AFAIK, that includes being able
sanjeev> to
kristian> discover neighbors and turn up adjacencies to them.
sanjeev> Is
kristian> this not the case? Observe that he is running an
sanjeev> Ethernet
kristian> point-to-point link, ie, it is not a non-broadcast
sanjeev> medium.
kristian> Or are you saying that you can't do link-type p2p
sanjeev> without
kristian> configuring neighbours ?
>> >> If the link-type is set to "broadcast" then the
sanjeev> neighbours will
>> >> be correctly discovered. If the link-type is set to "p2p" >>
>> (Point-to-point) or "p2m" (Point-to-multipoint) then it is >>
>> necessary to configure the neighbours. It has been argued
sanjeev> that it
>> >> should not be necessary to configure the neighbours if the >>
>> routers are connected via a true Point-to-point link, but >>
>> unfortunately even in this case it is necessary to
sanjeev> configure the
>> >> neighbour.
>>
kristian> Okey, that "kinda" makes sense. I apparently forgot
sanjeev> or
kristian> missed the conversation on this. What I want to
sanjeev> configure
kristian> with link-type p2p is not whether or not the router
sanjeev> should
kristian> try to broadcast but if it should setup one of
sanjeev> those
kristian> virtual router thingys, hehe. I'm not very familiar
sanjeev> with
kristian> the terminology but (as you know) on a broadcast
sanjeev> medium
kristian> you first have a DR selection and all that and then
sanjeev> you're
kristian> gonna run your SPF. Since SPF can't handle the
sanjeev> concept of
kristian> a broadcast medium it creates a "virtual router" to
kristian> represent the broadcast medium and connects all
sanjeev> routers in
kristian> that broadcast domain as adjacencies to the virtual
kristian> router. When I configure 'isis network
sanjeev> point-to-point' on
kristian> a Cisco router I expect it to not setup one of
sanjeev> these
kristian> "virtual routers" in it's SPF topology. And this is
kristian> different with XORP?
>> Setting the link type to "broadcast" or "p2p" will both result
>> in
sanjeev> the
>> hello packets being broadcast, the distinction is that if the
sanjeev> link-type
>> is set to "p2p" no DR election will be attempted.
sanjeev> Alright, just as I expected.
>> The XORP OSPF behaves as specified in the relevant RFCs and
>> interoperates with other
sanjeev> OSPF
>> implementations, the only difference is in configuration of a
sanjeev> "p2p"
>> where we require the neighbour to be specified, which as I
sanjeev> mentioned
>> before should not strictly be necessary.
sanjeev> Okey, not what I expected. Why is it so? Just lack of
sanjeev> time to do the actual implementation (although I don't see
sanjeev> how it would actually be more code than it is today) or has
sanjeev> there been a policy decision against it? -K
sanjeev> ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Thu, 13 Sep
sanjeev> 2007 16:11:57 -0700 From: Pavlin Radoslavov
sanjeev> <pavlin at icir.org> Subject: Re: [Xorp-users] Unreachable
sanjeev> default route. To: Ben Greear <greearb at candelatech.com>
sanjeev> Cc: xorp-users at xorp.org, Pavlin Radoslavov <pavlin at icir.org
sanjeev> >, Tim Durack <tdurack at gmail.com> Message-ID:
sanjeev> <200709132312.l8DNBvsa040733 at possum.icir.org > Ben Greear
sanjeev> <greearb at candelatech.com> wrote:
>> Pavlin Radoslavov wrote:
>>
>> > You could use the following configuration on Linux to configure
sanjeev> a
>> > discard interface and a static route that is blackhole:
>> >
>> > interfaces { > interface my_discard { > discard: true > vif
>> my_discard { > } > } > }
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Ok, this does indeed create a blackhole route. But, it seems
sanjeev> this will just
>> silently eat packets. What I really want is unreachable, which
sanjeev> will return ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Correct. This is the
sanjeev> definition of "blackhole" :)
>> the proper ICMP packet saying the destination is unreachable.
>>
>> Any idea how hard it would be to add this functionality?
sanjeev> You need to install a different type of route in the
sanjeev> kernel which I believe in Linux is RTN_UNREACHABLE instead
sanjeev> of RTN_BLACKHOLE. However, XORP doesn't support such
sanjeev> routes. You could try experimenting with such routes by
sanjeev> replacing all references (I counted two references) of
sanjeev> RTN_BLACKHOLE with RTN_UNREACHABLE inside file
sanjeev> fea/data_plane/fibconfig/fibconfig_entry_set_netlink_socket.cc
sanjeev> This is not the right solution, but allows you to play with
sanjeev> such routes. Just curious, could you describe your
sanjeev> particular scenario you have that requires installing
sanjeev> RTN_UNREACHABLE routes.
>> In the meantime, I'll work on a patch that makes the 'static'
sanjeev> priority
>> configurable with an environment variable.
sanjeev> I should tell you upfront that configurable admin
sanjeev> distances in RIB has been on our TODO list for quite some
sanjeev> time. However it is not trivial if we want to do it
sanjeev> properly by taking into account various considerations.
sanjeev> E.g., one of the goals is to be able to configure the
sanjeev> priorities (on the fly) inside the XORP config file.
sanjeev> Hence, most likely we won't use a solution that is based on
sanjeev> setting an environmental variable (or something like this).
sanjeev> In other words, don't be offended if your patch is not
sanjeev> applied to the CVS. Though, if I were in your position I
sanjeev> would use such shortcut in my local XORP copy. Regards,
sanjeev> Pavlin
>> Thanks, Ben
>>
>> --
>> Ben Greear <greearb at candelatech.com> Candela Technologies Inc
>> http://www.candelatech.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________ Xorp-users
>> mailing list Xorp-users at xorp.org
>> http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-users
sanjeev> ------------------------------
sanjeev> _______________________________________________ Xorp-users
sanjeev> mailing list Xorp-users at xorp.org
sanjeev> http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-users
sanjeev> End of Xorp-users Digest, Vol 18, Issue 15
sanjeev> ******************************************
sanjeev> -- Efforts may fail,But don't Fail to make efforts.
sanjeev> --------- Sanjeev Kumar Project Engineer CDAC(Formerly
sanjeev> NCST) Juhu,Mumbai-400049
sanjeev> _______________________________________________ Xorp-users
sanjeev> mailing list Xorp-users at xorp.org
sanjeev> http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-users
More information about the Xorp-users
mailing list