OSPFv3 and logging (debug)

[Ondrej Zajicek]

On Sat, Dec 07, 2013 at 02:49:20PM +0400, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:
>> Although adding an iface scope to link-local addresses helps a bit,
>> link-local addresses are still confusing when there are many neighbors
>> on one iface.
> Yes, definitely.
>>
>> I am thinking about replacing IPs with router IDs as a primary neighbor
>> description in most OSPF log messages. Any comments/opinions to such
>> change?
> Router id is much better identifier, yes. However it is worth adding  
> interface name as well (at least if given OSPF instance has several  
> different interfaces).

Yes, something like 'neighbor X.X.X.X on ethX'.

> Just for history purposes, what others currently do:

Thanks for the review.

-- 
Elen sila lumenn' omentielvo

Ondrej 'SanTiago' Zajicek (email: santiago at crfreenet.org)
OpenPGP encrypted e-mails preferred (KeyID 0x11DEADC3, wwwkeys.pgp.net)
"To err is human -- to blame it on a computer is even more so."
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://trubka.network.cz/pipermail/bird-users/attachments/20131210/8ae34c4f/attachment-0001.asc>