On Sep 10, 2015, at 9:36 AM, Paul Jakma <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 10 Sep 2015, Donald Sharp wrote: >> Paul - >> >> I don't get this. 'no neighbor activate' does nothing more than >> temporarily turn the neighbor off, why would it remove some config? If I >> wanted to remove the neighbor, I would do a 'no neighbor X' instead, right? > > As things stand, 'no neigh X' removes the neighbour completely, regardless of > the AFI/SAFI context. 'no neigh X activate' removes the AFI/SAFI config and > deconfigs that AFi/SAFI. > > Various arguments could be made I guess, though. > > Note, you can also put the general configuration into a peer-group, and then > activate and deactivate neighbours to use that peer-group. And deactivating > should leave the peer-group. > > So peer-groups can give a label for sets of configs and make that config-set > have a lifetime beyond specific neighbour definition/activation.
ISTM that the current behavior is a significant violation of the principle of least surprise. It also differs from similar commands, like "shutdown" on an interface. I think it would be preferable to have it simply deactivate the neighbor without changing the config in any way. That's a useful thing to be able to do. /a _______________________________________________ Quagga-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
