Nicolas Williams writes:
> I think I'd rather configure both, dynamic and static routing in one
> service, rather than in two, what, mutually exclusive services.
Now I'm really confused.
How, then, does one configure the system to run (or not run) a routing
protocol? What service is that? I think one of the user interface
issues here is that there are people who would prefer not to run any
real routing protocols at all[1], and thus we want a way to shut them
all down.
If it's a matter of saying "turn off RIP, turn off BGP, turn off OSPF,
turn off IS-IS, turn off DVMRP, turn off ..." and iterating through a
huge list, then I think we've lost part of the control that's desired
here.
[1] No, I don't completely understand this point of view, so it's hard
for me to describe it adequately. Perhaps one of the adherents
will chime in. ;-}
> Nor is it clear that one couldn't have a routing daemon even when all
> it's configured to do is install some static routes and then wait (for
> the sysadmin to change the configuration, essentially).
Sure; I think having a static route control daemon is actually an
interesting idea, as it can (just like any other routing service)
interact properly with policy rules. Traditional static routes can't
do that.
But I think that's a much longer-term direction.
> In any case, the post I was replying to didn't, IIRC, mention static
> routes, whereas I did mention them.
>
> And if we'd not have any daemons lying around if only static routes were
> configured then I'd not like to end up with more services than necessary
> due to the need to choose transient vs. non-transient-ness for services
> upfront.
The issue, I think, is still how one can enable and disable desired
services. In this case, I see no clear way to disable the "dynamic
routing protocol" service, unless it exists as an SMF entity.
--
James Carlson, KISS Network <james.d.carlson at sun.com>
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
