[Xorp-users] XORP 1.6 Questions and Comments (with examples)

Ben Greear greearb at candelatech.com
Mon Jul 12 12:20:31 PDT 2010


On 07/11/2010 09:46 AM, Garry Peirce wrote:

> 2 - we must define vlan interfaces individual and not as vifs as mcast
> configuration will fail (via experience).

Is there any good reason to support vlans as sub-interfaces?  We might
could simplify fea quite a bit if we removed the support entirely, and
if it already doesn't work, then we shouldn't be causing too much
extra inconvenience.

But, if there is a good reason to keep it, then this is something I
can probably fix.

> 3 - register-vif requires the use of another interface's address and
> therefore (in 1.6) must be defined first.

At the least we could offer a useful error message if this happens.

I'm not sure if this bug exists in xorp.ct or not,
so if someone reproduces this in xorp.ct, plz let me know.

Thanks,
Ben

-- 
Ben Greear <greearb at candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com



More information about the Xorp-users mailing list