[Xorp-users] "Reloading" config

[Jeff Mitchell]

I should have made it clear I'm on xorp.ct, fairly recent git. Comments 
inline:

On 08/16/2010 11:21 AM, Ben Greear wrote:
> On 08/16/2010 07:33 AM, Jeff Mitchell wrote:
>> Hi there,
>>
>> AFAIK there is no option from outside xorpsh to write out a XORP config
>> file and read it into a running XORP instance.
>>
>> However, if I write out a XORP config file and then use something like
>> Expect to enter xorpsh and run the "load" command, followed by "commit",
>> will this effectively perform such a "reload"?
>
> One thing we noticed is that we needed to commit after un-loading old stuff,
> and again after loading the new stuff.  Xorp.ct makes commit much faster,
> but it's still around 1 second for big changes on moderate machines.
>
> Some of those limitations may be removed in xorp.ct, but I haven't
> tried removing my intermediate 'commit' logic from my scripts.

The xorp config file I need to use is getting generated 
dynamically...it'd be quite difficult to unload old stuff and then load 
the new stuff in. I think. Or is it?

Any advice on the topic appreciated. Ideally, I'd be able to change 
configs over with minimal interruption to routing protocols and no 
packet loss for static routes. I am using the system routes within xorp, 
but if it does something like turns off IPv4 forwarding when one config 
is removed/committed and then only turns it back on when the next config 
is loaded/committed then that might be an issue.

> In xorp 1.6 and such, you are unlikely to have much luck with this
> as removing config often ran into assertions in FEA and the protocols.
>
>> What limitations might I run into? For instance, if the configuration I
>> am replacing the running configuration with is fairly different in terms
>> of either running protocols, parameters to those protocols, or both?
>
> Technically, I think it should handle anything you throw at it..and I'm
> interested in bug reports and/or patches if you find anything that breaks
> (in xorp.ct).

Will certainly bug you about bugs. :-)

Thanks,
Jeff