bgp sorted tables

[Maria Jan Matějka]

>other implementations has no problems with sorted output, even for
>hundreds thousands of routes in table.

That is not my problem, nor a valid argument at all. By the way, when writing about significantly slower output, it still does not mean any problems like getting BIRD stuck or bloated. Just that you may wait for several seconds more than for the unsorted output.

>It also can be implemented as a some configuration option or as a
>command parameter (something like "show ... sorted"), if you're worry
>about significant performance degradation.

Exactly this is how it will look like.

>Unsorted route output is main problem, but I also pointed, that
>there're
>other "show" commands, where sorted listing might be useful in some
>cases from operator's perspective.

See my answer below, I suspect you have not read it. The show protocol output should be sorted in the same order as entries in config; if it is broken somehow, please report it as a bug with a reproducer.

Interfaces are sorted by kernel index. Symbols are not sorted, if you want them sorted, send a patch please. I don't have simple access to other show outputs now; if there is something that is not sorted according to the config order, nor in any other way, and if you think there is a good reason to sort the output, please send a patch or at least describe what and how and why you want to have sorted. If it doesn't take much time, we may implement that.

Maria


>On 10/18/18 1:34 PM, Maria Jan Matějka wrote:
>> On October 18, 2018 10:44:36 AM GMT+02:00, Daniel Suchy
><danny at danysek.cz> wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>> I think sorting should not be limited only to "show routes" output.
>> 
>> Beware. The sorted output may be significantly slower than the
>unsorted. The unsorted route list will remain the default. 
>> 
>>> Also
>>> other show commands needs to be sorted in human-readable order (like
>>> show protocols, show bfd sessions etc). In large-scale deployments
>>> (like
>>> IXP route-servers, where you're also have limited commands available
>>> within looking-glasses), current outputs are quite messy.
>> 
>> They shall be sorted in the same order as in config. This allows for
>having any custom order to e.g. have bgp protocol and the appropriate
>pipe together at the same place (in multitable mode) or anything else
>the operator thinks out of the thin air.
>> 
>> If it doesn't work in this way, please report a bug with a
>reproducer. We should also mention that in documentation, it is
>probably missing there. 
>> 
>>> Is there any plan / road-map to change current behavior?
>> 
>> Not really. There is no good reason to change one arbitrary ordering
>to another one, especially when the current ordering is user defined.
>> 
>> Anyway, it may be helpful to allow sorting wildcard includes in
>config. Would that help? 
>> 
>> Maria 
>> 
>>> On 10/18/18 10:04 AM, Maria Jan Matějka wrote:
>>>> I suspect you want sorting the whole table by the prefices. This is
>>>> currently not supported. After we implement the sorting by prefix,
>it
>>>> won't need any special keyword in config, you will be able to
>request
>>>> sorted output in show route command.
>> 

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.