Ahoj (again) :-)
While in the process of cleaning up "ancient" configs (basically rewriting them
from scratch) I came across an odd discovery:
A template definition (for a kernel protocol) demands the specification of one
(and only one) channel - which, in my case, defeats the whole purpose of having
a kernel template in the first place.
I attempted to have a template with all the "standard behaviour" I wanted
(persist, metric, table #, ...) for both IPv6 and legacy-IPv4 kernel tables and
then tried to apply it like so:
template kernel KERNEL {
persist;
learn;
metric 20;
kernel table 10;
}
protocol kernel KERNEL6 from KERNEL {
ipv6;
}
protocol kernel KERNEL4 from KERNEL {
ipv4;
}
... because I thought the templating mechanism was "just" some syntactic sugar,
similar to an "include" statement?!
As the kernel template demands a (single) channel statement, which could then,
upon invocation, not be "negated" again, i.e., by a
no ipv4;
statement I can only have two templates - one pre-destined for IPv6 and another
for IPv4.
What is the intention behind this? I do understand, that -in the end- the
actual protocol defined through a template must have one (and only one in the
case of a "kernel" protocol) channel definition and in my example this
requirement would be fulfilled.
Thoughts? Hints?
Thanks again -
Clemens
