[Click] IPRouteTable and outputs

[Eddie Kohler]

That is 3 people against, the idea is DEAD!

Thanks all.
E


Ian Rose wrote:
> 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