On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 14:33 -0400, Joseph Yee wrote: > Hi Timo, > > What's your thought on the 'precedence order' (hope it make sense), > on protocol, remote_ip, local_ip?
I'm not sure if there is one.
> Sample 2 is tough, that's why I asked what's your thought on
> precedence order. Restricting syntax to only remote before local (or
> vice versa) should resolve it.
Actually I don't think it would really solve much either.
> > local_ip 192.168.0.1 {
> > remote_ip 10.1.2.0/24 {
> > foo = foo
> > }
> > }
> > remote_ip 10.1.2.3 {
> > local_ip 192.168.0.0/24 {
> > foo = bar
> > }
> > }
You could write this as:
local_ip 192.168.0.1 {
remote_ip 10.1.2.0/24 {
foo = foo
}
}
local_ip 192.168.0.0/24 {
remote_ip 10.1.2.3 {
foo = bar
}
}
You'd still have to decide if local_ip is more important than remote_ip,
or if it should just be done in order and it should always use either
"first" or "last".
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
