On 10/13/2009 12:22 PM, Li Zhao wrote: > 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.
If your daemon communicates to xorp through xorpsh, it seems like it would work OK. A user could always screw something by manually messing with xorpsh (or doing worse things on the linux command-line, for example). Maybe you are worried about concurrent xorpsh usage by your script and a user? I'm not sure how that would work..but I can imagine it being a problem. 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
