On 06/01/2012 02:09 PM, Igor Maravić wrote: >> Igor: Why should we ever restrict adding the connected routes? >> >> It seems to me that if the routing protocol wants it added, fea >> should just do so. But maybe I'm missing something? >> > > When the route comes to the RIB, if it isn't recognized as direct > route, RIB assumes that this route is external one. > This happens with BGP routes, because their nexthop is external. > > Because of that it will try to resolve the nexthop for that route with > existing IGP routes. > > The BGP routes can't be resolved, if this behavior is overridden. > > Thus I think that the best solution would be if the OLSR would tell > the RIB to add directly connected route. > This will resolve the problem of RIB recognizing OLSR routes as external. > My proposition is to add function add_direct_route, that would be > called via xrl from OLSR, the same way as add_route is called now. But > that function would be in any doubt if it should resolve route as > external or not. > > Maybe it is possible to check if route is resolved for wireless link, > or not, from the add_route function, without braking the BGP route > resolution, > but I think that would stress out a performance dramatically. This is > due the fact that before resolving any BGP route it would pass through > all vifs to check if they are wireless or not (according to Jiangxin > patch)
Ok, I haven't looked at this stuff in a while (and perhaps never in great detail), so a new method: add_direct_route seems good to me. Better than changing behaviour based on an interface flag I think. Thanks, Ben > > BR > Igor -- 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
