On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 11:49:17 +0100
Claudio Jeker <cje...@diehard.n-r-g.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 12:13:20PM +0200, Gregory Edigarov wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 10:34:48 +0100
> > Claudio Jeker <cje...@diehard.n-r-g.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I'm wondering if anyone is using the "rtable number" config
> > > option in OpenBGPD. Upcomming changes are currently conflicting
> > > with this feature and I wonder if we should remove it or fix it.
> > >
> >
> > I use this feature to provide fine-grained routing in some cases.
> > and I really looking for the same feature in ospfd.
> > so my opinion is to fix it
> >
>
> So you run multiple bgpd on the same box?
No, in the setup I need a default table to be populated by manually
added routes, and a second table, which is populated via bgp.
Though, on second thought I could use "route -T 1 bgpd" construct...
> For ospfd there is something similar. It is possible to run multiple
> ospfd in different rdomains but that is not the same as the rtableid
> of bgpd. I can not see how you want to run multiple ospfd instances
> over the same interface (the protocol does not allow that).
>
--
With best regards,
Gregory Edigarov
