On Wed, 10 Dec 2014, Feng Lu wrote:
(4) Would you please look into the OSPF code? I believe that the code
is designed to *handle multiple instances in only one daemon*. :)
I'll have a look. Bit slow at the moment for external reasons.
I can show the proof:
- Nearly all functions can access the working instance (except that
it does not need), by having a parameter of *ospf/*area/*oi (the
*ospf can be obtained from *area/*oi).
If there's only one instance, that parameter is extremely redundant.
Yeah, I remember when that was added in GNU Zebra days. Lot of churn. I
had assumed back then multi-instance support was going to follow, but it
never did.
It's my memory of that churn that makes me a bit resistant to
N-instance-in-1. However, for ospfd, if the price has already been paid
and VRF can build on that without further churn, maybe...
Tthere's still the config story though. I'd hate to end up with VRF config
relating a protocol instance to VRFs potentially in both the config file
of a VRF management daemon (to manage what processes handle what), and
also in the config of a daemon (if it's handling multiple VRFs in one 1).
If you can allay that fear, that'd help too.
regards,
--
Paul Jakma [email protected] @pjakma Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
She cried, and the judge wiped her tears with my checkbook.
-- Tommy Manville
_______________________________________________
Quagga-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
