Eddie - Sorry if I am slow on the uptake, but why would you want to do this when you could just change the port '2' to a '0' and it would work normally? I can't really come up with any scenarios where the port number would have some kind of semantic meaning and thus it would be "nice" to be able to use a port number of your choice (2) rather than whichever comes next numerically (0)...
- Ian Braem Bart wrote: > Hey, > > I prefer an error instead of allowing this. > It is easier to be able to scan through a script and have all semantics there > instead of having to know that routing tables are an exception to port > assignment rules and thus can generate this behavior. This might be very > unexpected to new Click users, which is where I am interested in as you know. > But those are just my 2 cents of course. > > Bart > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] on behalf of Eddie Kohler > Sent: Fri 2/26/2010 4:35 > To: Click Mailinglist > Subject: [Click] IPRouteTable and outputs > > Hey, > > Idle -> rt :: StaticIPLookup(1.0.0.0/8 2) -> Idle > > is illegal because rt only has 1 output. An alternate thing would be to > allow > this and drop the packet. I'm tending to think it would be better to allow > this & drop the packet. Thoughts? > > E > _______________________________________________ > click mailing list > [email protected] > https://amsterdam.lcs.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/click > > _______________________________________________ > click mailing list > [email protected] > https://amsterdam.lcs.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/click _______________________________________________ click mailing list [email protected] https://amsterdam.lcs.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/click
