On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 14:33 -0400, Joseph Yee wrote:
Hi Timo,
What's your thought on the 'precedence order' (hope it make sense),
on protocol, remote_ip, local_ip?
I'm not sure if there is one.
Sample 2 is tough, that's why I asked what's your thought on
precedence order. Restricting syntax to only remote before local (or
vice versa) should resolve it.
Actually I don't think it would really solve much either.
local_ip 192.168.0.1 { remote_ip 10.1.2.0/24 { foo = foo } } remote_ip 10.1.2.3 { local_ip 192.168.0.0/24 { foo = bar } }
You could write this as:
local_ip 192.168.0.1 { remote_ip 10.1.2.0/24 { foo = foo } } local_ip 192.168.0.0/24 { remote_ip 10.1.2.3 { foo = bar } }
You'd still have to decide if local_ip is more important than remote_ip, or if it should just be done in order and it should always use either "first" or "last".