Hi Paul, Got some more feedback about the current usage of views. So, to keep view config and show/clear commands backward compatible, We can go with what we have for views today. Just add vrf in parallel.
Basically, like you hinted, code change wise, it can be .. (view|vrf) WORD .. and we will adjust the argument index. and both will lead to the same instance with the given name. Thanks, Vipin On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 2:54 AM, Paul Jakma <p...@jakma.org> wrote: > On Mon, 23 Nov 2015, Paul Jakma wrote: > > For VRFs, one obvious choice is to use similar model with vrf keyword: >>> >>> router bgp <asn> vrf <name> >>> >> >> >> or: >> >> router bgp <asn> view <name1> >> vrf enable [optional VRF name if not same as the view name] >> >> > Oh, in terms of commands, you could have both or either or whatever. > > In terms of churning the code to rename 'view' to 'vrf'. I'd ask, why > both? Just leave as 'view', and a 'view' can associate to a 'vrf' - or why > wouldn't that work? > > regards, > -- > Paul Jakma p...@jakma.org @pjakma Key ID: 64A2FF6A > Fortune: > It's currently a problem of access to gigabits through punybaud. > -- J. C. R. Licklider >
_______________________________________________ Quagga-dev mailing list Quagga-dev@lists.quagga.net https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
