Who flattened the policy statements into these instrunction terms? --- On Wed, 12/16/09, Li Zhao <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Li Zhao <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Xorp-hackers] ospf4 and ospf6 can not apply export policy at > the same time > To: "Bruce Simpson" <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Date: Wednesday, December 16, 2009, 1:46 PM > a correction: the second policy > exited from runTerm in function IvExec::Visit(OnFalseExit > &). > > --- On Wed, 12/16/09, Li Zhao <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > From: Li Zhao <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [Xorp-hackers] ospf4 and ospf6 can not > apply export policy at the same time > > To: "Bruce Simpson" <[email protected]> > > Cc: [email protected] > > Date: Wednesday, December 16, 2009, 1:24 PM > > I understand how these tags are used > > now. The problem for redistributing static routes > into > > both ospf4 and ospf6 was when static_routes prepared > routes > > before pushing the routes into the rib. > > in IvExec::run, there will be two policies. The first > one > > is always ospf6 policy and second is ospf4 policy. > > when terms are processed, there are 8 instructions for > each > > policy to be run. > > Somehow the second (ospf4) policy exited from running > terms > > in function > > IvExec::Visit(NaryInstr &) because t->val() == > > false. > > So the routes had one tag, which is ospf4 tag, left > out! > > I am wondering why the two similar policies have > different > > t->val(). > > > > Li > > > > --- On Fri, 12/11/09, Li Zhao <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > From: Li Zhao <[email protected]> > > > Subject: Re: [Xorp-hackers] ospf4 and ospf6 can > not > > apply export policy at the same time > > > To: "Bruce Simpson" <[email protected]> > > > Cc: [email protected] > > > Date: Friday, December 11, 2009, 1:32 PM > > > Bruce, what does a PolicyTag mean? > > > e.g. RIB was asked to add <ospfv2, tag=7> > and > > > <ospfv3, tag=8> into _policy_redist_map. > How > > the > > > source protocol > > > (e.g. static_routes) > > > uses that tag to mark routes I do not quite > > understand. > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > Li > > > > > > --- On Mon, 11/30/09, Bruce Simpson <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > From: Bruce Simpson <[email protected]> > > > > Subject: Re: [Xorp-hackers] ospf4 and ospf6 > can > > not > > > apply export policy at the same time > > > > To: "Li Zhao" <[email protected]> > > > > Cc: [email protected] > > > > Date: Monday, November 30, 2009, 6:05 PM > > > > Li Zhao wrote: > > > > > I noticed that if both ospf4 and ospf6 > > > redistribute > > > > static routes, ospf4 will fail to > redistribute > > static > > > > routes. This is a bug. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you please raise this on XORP's Trac on > > > SourceForge, > > > > preferably with an appropriate test case, > so > > someone > > > can get > > > > around to looking at it when there's free > time to > > do > > > so? > > > > > > > > thanks, > > > > BMS > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Xorp-hackers mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-hackers > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Xorp-hackers mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-hackers > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Xorp-hackers mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-hackers > _______________________________________________ Xorp-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-hackers
