Changing the OwnerType when adding a route

Document created by cdnadmin on Jan 25, 2014
Version 1Show Document
  • View in full screen mode

Subject: RE: Changing the OwnerType when adding a route
Replied by: Karen Cadora on 05-09-2013 10:37:06 AM
Hi, Brett.

If an application adds a route, it can only be of type APP.  Only the OSPF process can add OSPF routes.  Think of the application route table as a dynamic version of the static route table in that way.

Is the application still connected when you do a "show ip route" ?  The route is ephemeral, so it will go away when the application disconnects. You can also check that you've provided a valid next-hop interface.

Hope that helps,

Subject: RE: Changing the OwnerType when adding a route
Replied by: Joseph Clarke on 05-09-2013 10:39:06 AM
You can't change the owner type.  This will reflect who actually installed the route.  Only OSPF-installed routes will have an owner type of OSPF.

The route will appear in the routing table with an 'a' flag assuming the app is still running.  The routes will be automatically removed when the app terminates.  Can you share your code to see if there is any other issue with your routes being added?
This document was generated from CDN thread

Created by: Brett Kugler on 05-09-2013 10:20:23 AM
I am experimenting with the tutorial code in the SDK (V1.0, Java) and have a question about how to set the OwnerType of a route when adding a new route.  By default, the Routing tutorial seems to add a route with OwnerType APP and I'd like to change it to OSPF.

Here's the result of the listener callback -
22750 [Thread-1] INFO - Route: L3UnicastRoute[address:/,ownerType:APP,ownerTag:RoutingTutorial:1409,routeType:NONE,adminDistance:1,metric:0,errorCode:NONE]

As a side note, the route doesn't seem to be actually added to the router (show ip route doesn't have it listed) and grabbing the RIB on a subsequent call to the tutorial app also doesn't show the new route.

Subject: RE: Changing the OwnerType when adding a route
Replied by: Brett Kugler on 05-09-2013 02:25:12 PM
Thank you for the prompt reply.  It's clear this was a conceptual issue on our end, so thank you for clearing that up.  This will cause us to re-evaluate some of our potential use cases.