OSPF and IPv6

[David Rohleder]

Martin Mares <mj at ucw.cz> writes:

>  
> > I have also got a comment about export and import keywords. I don't
> > think it is a good idea to call it this way. These keywords are a part
> > of protocol statement, so "export" semantic is to export routes
> > originating in this protocol to routing table - you call it
> > "import". It is really confusing me.
> 
> Agreed.  The problem is that the situation is completely symmetric, so any
> naming you choose has to be a bit confusing -- it's the same as defining
> left and right hand.
> 
> We have chosen "bird-centric" view, hence "export" means "export from
> bird to the outside world" and "import" the opposite.

So, you call protocols outside world? Did i understand correctly?

I agree, that situation is quite symmetric, but when you are inside
(protocol definition) then export means "go out of here" (to routing table).


Your point of view is developer's. You see "core" routing table as a
main part of bird. But as a user I see protocols as a main part of
bird.

This is certainly caused by configuration file, because there are not
configuration commands for "core" routing table.


PS: is that list who sends your letter to me and copy to the list, or
is that you?


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Rohleder						davro at ics.muni.cz
Institute of Computer Science, Masaryk University
Brno, Czech Republic
-------------------------------------------------------------------------