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

[Henning Rogge]

On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Nemesis <(spam-protected)> wrote:
> 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?

Yes.

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

yes.

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

OLSRv2 has the ability to announce routing metric costs for "attached
networks" (the HNA's of OLSRv1). Not sure if we want to announce this
costs here or just skip them for detailed (protocol specific)
information on the routing protocol.

Henning