[rancid] Repetitive RANCID Checks
mark.tinka at seacom.mu
Thu May 15 19:49:09 UTC 2014
On Thursday, May 15, 2014 04:44:46 PM Alan McKinnon wrote:
> 2. Why are we sorting these lists by ip address? Surely
> sorting 1) by prefix name then 2) by seq makes more
> sense? This is what my NetOps colleagues would like to
> see happen.
Well, yes - sorting by prefix name and sequence number would
make more sense to me, as an operator.
That said, I've always noticed that RANCID does not include
the sequence number of prefix lists in the final output that
gets saved and/or sent out via e-mails. Is this something
that is problematic to implement? Thanks.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
More information about the Rancid-discuss