Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Support bgpq4 #844

Closed
rlaager opened this issue May 13, 2023 · 6 comments
Closed

Support bgpq4 #844

rlaager opened this issue May 13, 2023 · 6 comments

Comments

@rlaager
Copy link
Contributor

rlaager commented May 13, 2023

bgpq4 (versions 1.7 and up) support the RADB::AS-FOO syntax.

https://github.com/bgp/bgpq4#notes-on-sources
bgp/bgpq4@08b81f7

The command line arguments seem the same, so I don't know that there's actually anything to do here other than document that it works.

@rlaager
Copy link
Contributor Author

rlaager commented May 13, 2023

bgpq4 does not support the -3 argument, so this is an issue:

$json = $this->execute( '-3j -l pl -f 999 ' . escapeshellarg( $asmacro ), false );

@barryo
Copy link
Member

barryo commented May 13, 2023

What's the fallout of not having the -3 argument?

Does bgpq4 make that assumption by default?

@barryo
Copy link
Member

barryo commented May 13, 2023

Answering my own question - the fallout is significant.

$ bgpq3 -jt AS-HURRICANE | tail -2
  64465,64466,64470,64477,64481,64490
]}
bgpq3 -3jt AS-HURRICANE | tail -3
  400757,400759,400771,400786,400800,400810,400846,401307,
  522123,645180
]}

It appears bgpq4 makes the assumption by default. It would be nice if bgpq4 - assuming it's trying to be a drop in replacement for bgpq3 - could just accept -3 as a no-op. Maybe open a query with them @rlaager ?

As it stands, this requires some minor coding. Tagging as feature request.

@rlaager
Copy link
Contributor Author

rlaager commented May 13, 2023

I agree that bgpq4 does it by default.

@rlaager
Copy link
Contributor Author

rlaager commented May 15, 2023

I submitted a pull request to bgpq4. The response in the issue was favorable and the PR is trivial, so I'm optimistic this will be accepted.

@rlaager
Copy link
Contributor Author

rlaager commented May 15, 2023

The PR has been merged. So that will show up in bgpq4 1.10 (I assume that will be the version) whenever they release it.

@barryo barryo closed this as completed May 29, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants