newbee click questions
George V. Neville-Neil
gnn at windriver.com
Tue Jun 26 16:27:10 EDT 2001
> I think first we should make sure that this solution would not suffice:
>
> > However, you can easily make a single configuration file by concatentating
> > the multiple Click graphs, then run that. As long as the element names do
> > not conflict, this will work.
>
> 'cat' -- tool of the new millennium :) Or use 'click-combine', a slightly
> more sophisticated 'cat'.
>
Perhaps I'm missing something but if I want to identical copies of the router,
but with different configuration data, to be running at the same time
I don't think this solutions suffices.
I just read the click-combine man page and it does not indicate that this
is what I would get from the combination. Correct me if I'm wrong but
it seems that that tool combines multiple, independent, but related
routers through link elements and what I want is the following:
-------------------------------------------------------
| Linux Kernel
|
|
|
| ---------- ----------
|
| | | | |
|
| | Router A | | Router B |
|
| | | | |
|
| | | | |
|
| --| ----| --- --| -----|--
|
| | | | |
|
| 10.0.0.1 10.0.0.2 10.0.0.1 10.0.0.2
|
| | | | |
|
----|-----|---------|-----|-------------------------------
eth0 eth1 eth2 eth3
So that there are four interfaces, 2 assigned to each click router, and
the two routers do NOT share any information. I know there are ramifications
for parts of Click that interact with the OS (such as the routing table)
but those I know about. If each could be it's own thread that would
be great too.
Makes sense?
Later,
George
--
George V. Neville-Neil gnn at windriver.com
"I realize that when I have more ideas than others, I give those others
my ideas, if they want to accept them; and that, to me, is leading."
Baron Cosimo Piovasco di Rondo from _The Baron in The Trees_ by Italo
Calvino
More information about the click
mailing list