That is 3 people against, the idea is DEAD! Thanks all. E
Ian Rose wrote: > 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
