On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 14:33 -0400, Joseph Yee wrote: > Hi Timo, > > What's your thought on the 'precedence order' (hope it make sense), > on protocol, remote_ip, local_ip?
I'm not sure if there is one. > Sample 2 is tough, that's why I asked what's your thought on > precedence order. Restricting syntax to only remote before local (or > vice versa) should resolve it. Actually I don't think it would really solve much either. > > local_ip 192.168.0.1 { > > remote_ip 10.1.2.0/24 { > > foo = foo > > } > > } > > remote_ip 10.1.2.3 { > > local_ip 192.168.0.0/24 { > > foo = bar > > } > > } You could write this as: local_ip 192.168.0.1 { remote_ip 10.1.2.0/24 { foo = foo } } local_ip 192.168.0.0/24 { remote_ip 10.1.2.3 { foo = bar } } You'd still have to decide if local_ip is more important than remote_ip, or if it should just be done in order and it should always use either "first" or "last".
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part