Hi Stijn and all,
since I'm responsible for having compiled the list with most of the
controversial commands
I modified the complete list to try to solve the issues you raised. Of
course this a proposal. Tell me if this sounds reasonable to you. The
idea behind is to simplify as much as possible parameter usage.
Of course Juniper and Cisco CLI command syntax is similar but not
exactly the same. In most cases you can find two pretty equivalent
commands, but in some other is quite difficult. Sometimes you have
equivalent commands, which take slightly different parameters. For
example in some Cisco commands the prefix-length parameter is not
allowed, while it is allowed and optional in Juniper ones.
So, while the following two commands are both valid on juniper,:
show route 10.0.0.0/24 or show route 10.0.0.1
you can only use
show ip route 10.0.0.0 or show ip route 10.0.0.1
on Cisco routers , while the commands
show ip route 10.0.0.0/24
gives you a syntax error.
I can understand why this can result in some confusion... :-)
Now I'll explain the changes I made to the file command by command. The
final result in all cases is that the number and type of parameters in
the final commands (column 2 e 4) are the same.
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
(1) Cisco Commands
(Original)
|
Cisco Command (Final)
|
Juniper Command (Original)
|
Juniper Command (Final)
|
Explanation
|
| show ip ospf database external <ip address> |
show ip ospf database external |
show ospf database extern |
no changes
|
Since the <ip addess> parameter is
optional
on cisco, we can remove it. It doesn't make a big difference since the
DB normally is limited
|
show ip route <ip address>
|
no changes
|
show route <prefix> /[<length>] |
show route <ip address> |
The commands "show ip route" and "show route"
can be both issued without parameters, which is btw not good because
that way they will show all the router routing table, that can be quite
long. So I made the <ip addess> required and took off the prefix
length which is optional only on juniper.
|
| show IPv6 route <IPv6 address> |
no changes
|
show route table inet6 |
show route <IPv6 address> |
The command "show route table inet6 " on Juniper
restricts the search only to the IPv6 routing table. While the generic
"show route" looks into all routing tables. Since "show route" works
also with ipv6 address, I used it to simplify things. As in the
previous case, the parameter was made required to limit the output.
|
| show bgp IPv6 unicast <IPv6 prefix >
[<length>] |
show bgp IPv6 unicast <IPv6 prefix
/length> |
show route protocol bgp table inet6 <IPv6
prefix /length>
|
no changes
|
There was a mistake in cisco syntax. It was
missing a "/" and the "prefix length" is required. I made the lentgh
required so that the two commands are now the same.
|
show bgp IPv6 multicast <IPv6
prefix/length>
|
no changes
|
show route protocol bgp table inet6.2
<IPv6-prefix>[<prefix-length>] |
show route protocol bgp table inet6.2
<IPv6-prefix/length> |
Even if "length" is optional on Juniper, It was
made required to be conform to the cisco one.
|
| show IPv6 mroute <IPv6 address> |
show IPv6 mroute
|
show multicast route inet6
<IPv6-prefix/prefix-length> |
show multicast route inet6
|
Removed optional <ipv6 prefix/length> to
conform to ipv4 version
|
| show IPv6 rpf <IPv6-prefix> |
no changes
|
show multicast rpf inet6
<IPv6-prefix>[<prefix-length>]
|
show multicast rpf inet6 <IPv6-prefix>
|
Removed optional < prefix-length> on
Juniper command to conform to cisco one
|
You'll find attached the modified complete list of commands.
Hope this can be of help.
Alessandro
------------------------------------------------
Alessandro Inzerilli
CONSORTIUM GARR
The Italian Academic and Research Network
Phone +39 06 49622562
Fax +39 06 49622044
E-mail
Skype alessandroinzerilli
------------------------------------------------
Guilherme Fernandes wrote:
Stijn Melis wrote:
Hi all,
Hi Stijn,
I am in the process of fixing the design flaw in the SSTELNET MP. To get you up to date, I'll do a quick explanation of the problem first:
When executing some commands on both a Juniper and a Cisco router, the parameters which need to be entered by the user are different. So if you query both of them in the Looking Glass, you would have to type different paramaters for the different devices, which isn't possible, and which also goes against the whole idea of the Looking Glass itself.
This was first noticed with commands which need a fixed phrase at the end of the command. For example:
the IP_BGP_NEIGHBOUR_ADVERTISED command on Cisco is the following:
show ip bgp neighbor <ip address> advertised-routes
while on Juniper it is this:
show route advertising-protocol bgp <ip address>
The MP treats the "advertised-routes" on the Cisco command as a parameter as well, so if you want to perform this command on Cisco you would have to type e.g. "157.193.214.243 advertised-routes" as a parameter, while on Juniper you could just type "157.193.214.243".
There are some other commands which have this same problem, but I fixed this already (those are the ones marked in yellow in the excel file).
However, when looking through the command list, I noticed some other commands which expect a different parameter in Cisco than in Juniper (marked in red in the excel file).
These can be split into two groups: in one group, the Cisco command expects a parameter (mostly an IP address), while on Juniper it doesn't. An example of this is the IPv6_ROUTE command. On Cisco it is the following:
show IPv6 route <IPv6 address>
while on Juniper it is this:
show route table inet6
Maybe these Cisco commands give a response without a parameter as well, but I'm not sure about that. Could someone shed some light on this, please?
On all of the red cases, the arguments specified for cisco are
optional "qualifiers", and I believe the same happens for the Juniper
ones. So on your example above, the actual equivalent for the juniper
command in cisco is "show IPv6 route", and passing the IPv6 address
would just narrow the information to that specific address.
Either way, this could be fixed by not using the parameter for the Juniper command, and maybe adding a note to the response saying that the parameter wasn't used.
The other group has either a different syntax, or one or more parameters. For example, the IPv6_MULTICAST_BGP_TABLE command on Cisco is the following:
show bgp IPv6 multicast <IPv6-prefix/prefix-length>
while on Juniper it is:
show route protocol bgp table inet6.2 <IPv6-prefix>[<prefix-length>]
Are you sure this is the actual syntax for the Juniper command? I was
under the impression Juniper also used the "IPv6-prefix/prefix-length"
syntax (I don't have access to a Juniper right now to test it).
I can see this also happens for Cisco in the commands list:
"show bgp IPv6 unicast <IPv6 prefix network> [<length>]" is actually
<network>/<length>, so I believe the syntax for the parameter is the
same for the Juniper equivalent...
Hope that helps,
Guilherme
The problem here lies within the fact that the user can enter his parameters using either syntax, so it's a bit difficult to parse this. A possible solution would be to define a common syntax for these parameters, and then change this to the needed syntax when sending the command to the device. However, this would require a lot of hardcoded info in the MP with regards to the commands, and I would prefer to keep that to a minimum (otherwise I'd have to change the source code for the MP every time something changes about the commands).
Does anyone have any ideas about this, or do I keep this as it is at the moment (the last group that is, the rest is easy to fix)?
Cheers,
Stijn
|
