> > Bug, IMHO. Valid route, should be valid syntax. The fact you *can* shoot > > yourself in the head is not the tool's problem. Your gun, your foot. > [snip] > I agree, allowing customers to shoot them selves in various parts of their > anatomy is *not* the tool's problem. However, it does become our problem > when the shot is taken, they call us and their overall user experience is > less than favorable. I think having the tool unload the gun is > preferable.
Ordinarily, I'd agree -- cranky people with broken networks make my day less fun too. On the other hand, there is a difference between blocking a technically valid configuration completely and a great big message warning you that you're about to do something the designers think is suboptimal but you let them do it anyway, trusting that they know what they are doing. There are legitimate reasons to allow this configuration, even if it's usually a bad idea (example: if you need to adjust weighting for a P2P link in a IGP that will eventually be redistributed into an EGP at some point, and you want to control where the aggregation happens, or force it not to happen at all). I think this situation merits the latter, not the former. You get to trade one set of less sophisticated cranky users for more sophisticated cranky network weenies with a mission to do odd things in their routing. I'm not sure that's an improvement...8-) -- db
