On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 02:41:18PM -0400, James Carlson wrote: > 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.
I'd expect them to have to turn ON the routing protocols they want, not OFF; I'd expect them to know what protocols they want on, how to configure them, etc... > [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. ;-} Does noone mix dynamic and static routing? > > 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. But won't these service names be Committed? My point is that if we weren't forced to specify transient-ness in the service configuration then we could avoid splitting these services if we lack a routing daemon that can be configured to just install some static routes and sit there. > > 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. Huh? If you want forwarding to be enabled then you'd configure routing (static and/or dynamic) and enable the service, and if you wanted no forwarding then you'd leave the service disabled (or disable it if it had been enabled). Nico --
