<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hi people,<br>
<br>
here it comes the next question:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://github.com/interop-dev/json-for-networks/issues/4">https://github.com/interop-dev/json-for-networks/issues/4</a><br>
<br>
Should we model the static routes of a device (what's in ip route or
route -n)?<br>
<br>
Ubus does this but inserts the routes in each interface (same for
dns-servers and dns-search).<br>
<br>
Since we have one dns_servers block and one dns_search block, it
would make sense to make a single routes section for consistency,
unless we think it's more practical to have this information stored
at interface level like ubus does.<br>
<br>
Since Henning Rogge (core OLSR developer) confirmed that we can
reuse the structure in
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://github.com/interop-dev/json-for-networks/blob/master/examples/network-routes.json">https://github.com/interop-dev/json-for-networks/blob/master/examples/network-routes.json</a>
also for static routes
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.funkfeuer.at///pipermail/interop-dev/2014-November/000308.html">https://lists.funkfeuer.at///pipermail/interop-dev/2014-November/000308.html</a>)
we could add something like this to DeviceConfiguration:<br>
<br>
"routes": [<br>
{<br>
"destination": "ID",<br>
"source": "ID",<br>
"next" : "ID",<br>
"device": "DEVICE",<br>
"cost": 1<br>
}<br>
]<br>
<br>
Federico<br>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</body>
</html>