[j-nsp] Re: Re: Interfaces, deactivate vs disable

[Daniel Roesen]

On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 12:46:01PM -0400, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> It is also pretty darn annoying that you have to deactivate an entire 
> group when you deactivate its only/last remaining neighbor, leads to a lot 
> of weird corner cases with automated config management that just shouldn't 
> be.

ACK!

> While we're on the subject of small silly but annoying things, fix the 
> empty prefix-list problem too. :P Sometimes I want a prefix-list to be 
> empty (so that it can be easily filled with something later), and if I am 
> referencing it in a standardized config I can't deactivate it without also 
> breaking the policy that references it.

Yes yes yes!

> Oh and can't we find the guy who wrote the firewall language and the guy 
> who wrote the policy language and lock them in the same room together 
> until they add a termless "then whatever" default action that ALWAYS STAYS 
> ON THE BOTTOM to the firewall filters. Inserting the "default action" term 
> to the bottom after adding every new term is a pain in the ass.

Yep. Another annoyance. Something like "terminal-term" instead of "term
foo" would be nice. Or give the term name "terminal" or "last-resort"
some special meaning.

> Bleh must stop asking for easy things, will just make me disappointed when 
> I don't get them. :)

:-)

We should collect all that stuff on
http://wiki.denog.de/twiki/bin/view/NETWORKER/JunosWishlist


Best regards,
Daniel

-- 
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0