Basically I am adding a new application process to the xorp linux router. That application requires xorp_static_routes running and it periodically updates the static routes through xrl interface API. Because it is a router, an administrator can easily configure CLI via command "delete protocol static" and it will end up with terminating xorp_static_routes and removing static routes from rib. --- 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, 4:36 PM > 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
