[Xorp-users] install problem

[Bruce Simpson]

Ben Greear wrote:
> ...
> This only checks the client process, right?
>
> If so, is there anything that would keep a user from running xorpsh on 
> a separate machine (or VM)
> and connecting to the main xorp processes remotely? 

    I don't recall the specifics -- I haven't had to work with the 
Router Manager code itself in that level of depth since the Windows 
port, where the xorpsh didn't actually run on Windows natively due to 
the libtecla dependencies.
    However, you can run the xorpsh on a separate host, this was the 
original motivation behind splitting up security model checks on client 
vs server.
    The ultimate reference is, of course, the code...

    Most likely, in the XRL respin, this behaviour may be broken to 
begin with. The primary use case is xorpsh + processes on same box.
    I am agnostic about the value of this kind of para-virtualization, 
given that full system image virtualization is now commodified; but I 
can see why people would want to do it. It's just difficult to support 
with the resources currently available, and where people's interest lies.

thanks,
BMS