That was my first plan. But I thought I do not want unnecessay complexities related to config control, so I tried to first ask rtrmgr to start static_routes, then use the channel between daemon and static_routes directly to update static routes. But a big problem is that if a user use xorpsh CLI to "delete protocol static", then my daemon will not only lose the channel to static_routes which is terminated by CLI, but also will lose all the static routes installed by my daemon. Basically xorpsh CLI sessions can not cooperate with my daemon.
I am still looking for a good design. --- On Tue, 10/13/09, Ben Greear <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Ben Greear <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Xorp-hackers] static xrl interface calls > To: "Li Zhao" <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Date: Tuesday, October 13, 2009, 2:51 PM > On 10/13/2009 11:37 AM, Li Zhao > wrote: > > > > I am studying the code so I have not coded anything. > What I am working on is to write a control plane process > which will add and delete some special static routes. These > static routes can be redistributed by ospf etc. The the new > daemon will use the xrl interface calls. I do not want this > process talk to rtrmgr because the config tree structure is > adding unnecessary complixity. This new process can be > started by rtrmgr when rtrmgr starts. Then I want this new > process update the static routes directly to > xorp_static_routes. Then the problem is how to start > xorp_static_routes and its depending processes like > fea/fib/policy and make them working properly with xrl > finder. This is a really a pain for me because I have just > started to learn xorp for a few weeks. > > Can you just have the control plane process call xorpsh to > have it update > routes in the existing static-routes logic? I've used > xorpsh in similar manner > to update IPs, interfaces, etc and it has worked reasonably > well (after I fixed > a lot of bugs with dynamic interfaces!) > > > I am thinking if there is a simple API by which a > process other than xorpsh can ask rtrmgr to start > static_routes. > > > > Another problem. Commit is taking awkawrdly long > time. > > I fixed the commit problem in my tree: > > http://www.candelatech.com/oss/xorp-ct.html > > I get commit times of about 0.10 to 0.20 seconds now > (counting launching xorpsh). > > Thanks, > Ben > > -- > Ben Greear <[email protected]> > Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com > > _______________________________________________ Xorp-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-hackers
