[Click] IPRouteTable and outputs

[Ian Rose]

Eddie -

Sorry if I am slow on the uptake, but why would you want to do this when 
you could just change the port '2' to a '0' and it would work normally? 
  I can't really come up with any scenarios where the port number would 
have some kind of semantic meaning and thus it would be "nice" to be 
able to use a port number of your choice (2) rather than whichever comes 
next numerically (0)...

- Ian


Braem Bart wrote:
> Hey,
> 
> I prefer an error instead of allowing this. 
> It is easier to be able to scan through a script and have all semantics there instead of having to know that routing tables are an exception to port assignment rules and thus can generate this behavior. This might be very unexpected to new Click users, which is where I am interested in as you know.
> But those are just my 2 cents of course.
> 
> Bart
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: click-bounces at amsterdam.lcs.mit.edu on behalf of Eddie Kohler
> Sent: Fri 2/26/2010 4:35
> To: Click Mailinglist
> Subject: [Click] IPRouteTable and outputs
>  
> Hey,
> 
> Idle -> rt :: StaticIPLookup(1.0.0.0/8 2) -> Idle
> 
> is illegal because rt only has 1 output.  An alternate thing would be to allow 
> this and drop the packet.  I'm tending to think it would be better to allow 
> this & drop the packet.  Thoughts?
> 
> E
> _______________________________________________
> click mailing list
> click at amsterdam.lcs.mit.edu
> https://amsterdam.lcs.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/click
> 
> _______________________________________________
> click mailing list
> click at amsterdam.lcs.mit.edu
> https://amsterdam.lcs.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/click