[dev] Question on PBR daemon

[Atul Chowdhry]

Got it. Thanks a lot for the reply Donald.

Rgds
Atul

On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 1:24 PM Donald Sharp <donaldsharp72 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> This was an intentional design decision at the time of writing pbr from
> me.  I was not sure if people wanted partial pbr-maps or not.  I could see
> arguments for both sides so I erred on the side of being too zealous.  If
> you need different behavior add a knob in that allows it.
>
> donald
>
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 3:55 PM Atul Chowdhry <atul77 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Guys,
>> I was looking at PBR daemon code and looks like in current code, the
>> whole pbr-policy (struct pbr_map) is considered to invalid if any one of
>> the contained rules (struct pbr_map_sequence) inside the policy becomes
>> invalid.
>> I cannot figure the reason for this design choice. To me it looks like
>> policy rules are pretty much independent and policy is just a container for
>> these rules.
>> What am I missing?
>> I will really appreciate it if anyone can reply to my query.
>>
>> Thanks a lot in advance.
>>
>> Rgds
>> Atul
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dev mailing list
>> dev at lists.frrouting.org
>> https://lists.frrouting.org/listinfo/dev
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.frrouting.org/pipermail/dev/attachments/20210326/6b533260/attachment.htm>