[Interop-dev] Device Config: should we have a "routes" section too for static routes?

[Nemesis]

On 11/30/2014 10:19 AM, Henning Rogge wrote:
> Just define a routing-protocol with the well-known name "static". This
> makes it very easy to parse the routes of multiple protocols including
> static routes. No special case for static routes required. The "cost"
> of the static routes is the only thing that could be a bit tricky.

You mean we could putt all the routes in the "routing_protocols" sections?

If yes I was thinking, peraphs we could rename "routing_protocols" to
"routes" and we could use a list of NetworkRoutesobjects as defined in:
https://github.com/interop-dev/json-for-networks/blob/master/examples/network-routes.json

In which sense you mean "cost" for static routes is tricky? Tricky to
determine? Doesn't have much sense?

Federico
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.funkfeuer.at/pipermail/interop-dev/attachments/20141201/d4c72689/attachment.html>