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

Name and default value of "dynamic_backup_path" #198

Open
ajoaoff opened this issue Jul 29, 2020 · 3 comments
Open

Name and default value of "dynamic_backup_path" #198

ajoaoff opened this issue Jul 29, 2020 · 3 comments
Assignees

Comments

@ajoaoff
Copy link
Collaborator

ajoaoff commented Jul 29, 2020

This attribute of an EVC indicates if a dynamic path can or cannot be used, so maybe it should be called simple "dynamic_path".
Its default value is set to "False", but I think it should be "True" if there is no primary or secondary path defined.

@italovalcy
Copy link

Yes, I agree with the new name and expected behavior. If the request is for an intra-switch circuit (both UNIs are in the same switch), the path (dynamic or defined by the user) will not matter. If the request is for an inter-switch EVC, then either the path must be defined by the user or a dynamic path should be calculated (e.g., by pathfinder).

@italovalcy
Copy link

Another issue related to this is: when you create an EVC with primary_path field and dynamic_backup_path=True, mef_eline just use any dynamic path instead of setup the primary path as requested by the user.

@beraldoleal beraldoleal removed their assignment Feb 1, 2021
@ajoaoff
Copy link
Collaborator Author

ajoaoff commented Feb 1, 2021

Another issue related to this is: when you create an EVC with primary_path field and dynamic_backup_path=True, mef_eline just use any dynamic path instead of setup the primary path as requested by the user.

@italovalcy, I was unable to reproduce this behavior. Can you describe your environment and your queries?

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

5 participants