[quagga-dev 5158] Re: [PATCH] RIPv2 Redistributing Static Routes

On Sun, 2 Dec 2007, Daniel Ng wrote:

> Paul Jakma <Paul.Jakma <at> Sun.COM> writes:
>>> +              case ZEBRA_ROUTE_RIP:
>>> +              case ZEBRA_ROUTE_STATIC:
>>> +              {
>>> +                if (rinfo->ifindex == ifc->ifp->ifindex)
>>> +                  continue;
>>> +                break;
>>> +              }
>>
>> Wasn't it the idea that this would be the default case?
>>
>
> Paul, if we make this the the default case then we will miss out executing
> the 'route-map' code later on in the function. This 'route-map' code also
> deals with the '(rinfo->ifindex == ifc->ifp->ifindex)' case.
>
> Do you agree?

I'm confused then. Why isn't that later code sufficient for 
ZEBRA_ROUTE_STATIC then?

Why should ripd be treating ZEBRA_ROUTE_STATIC differently to other 
ZEBRA_ROUTE types (other than ZEBRA_ROUTE_RIP and 
ZEBRA_ROUTE_CONNECT)?

Your initial argument was that we could create loops because we 
weren't applying split-horizon to routes generally, using statics as 
an example. Why shouldn't that argument apply to BGP, OSPF, etc.. 
routes injected into RIP?

regards,
--

-- 
Paul Jakma	paul <at> clubi.ie	paul <at> jakma.org	Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
Take an astronaut to launch.