Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 21 Feb 2014 10:05:50 -0700
From:      John Nielsen <lists@jnielsen.net>
To:        Devin Teske <dteske@freebsd.org>
Cc:        "rc@freebsd.org" <rc@freebsd.org>, "net@freebsd.org" <net@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: network.subr _aliasN handling
Message-ID:  <7EAEF3AC-DB1B-4D3E-A156-E1E76B765990@jnielsen.net>
In-Reply-To: <AFFFCC9A-8C21-4C0B-A8D9-457E4C26DDA3@fisglobal.com>
References:  <20131228055324.GA72764@aim7400.DataIX.local> <A7699871-A170-4AD5-B740-ED8BE17C7107@fisglobal.com> <9498BE8E-8090-4E7A-8317-18D29B1DDC08@dataix.net> <7DBA7D58-E925-47BC-967C-F653348426A6@fisglobal.com> <A15FAFBD-4597-4D8D-A014-0D486573894C@dataix.net> <AFFFCC9A-8C21-4C0B-A8D9-457E4C26DDA3@fisglobal.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jan 4, 2014, at 4:25 AM, Teske, Devin <Devin.Teske@fisglobal.com> =
wrote:

> On Jan 4, 2014, at 2:59 AM, Jason Hellenthal wrote:
>=20
>> I believe I know what you mean by that but in a way scares me when =
you say sort as in mixing up the original order they appear in which I =
would find to be really unattractive to most.
>=20
> It's not as scary as it sounds.
>=20
> The issue is that the variables are sorted alphabetically, instead
> of numerically.
>=20
> Let's take four words: foo1, foo2, foo10, and foo20.
> If you sort them alphabetically, you get:
>=20
> 	foo1
> 	foo10
> 	foo2
> 	foo20
>=20
> You'll notice this when doing a directory listing, as that too is =
sorted
> alphabetically.
>=20
> This is why "alias14" is run before "alias8" and "alias9". Because =
they
> are processed in alphabetically sorted order. I didn't do anything to =
sort
> the values, they came pre-sorted in alphabetic order.
>=20
> If I simply throw in a "| sort -n", then it will change it to =
numerically sorted.
> As you might expect, numerically sorting the above list would result =
in:
>=20
> 	foo1
> 	foo2
> 	foo10
> 	foo20
>=20
> Trivial really. I'll throw a patch at you when I get some cycles =
(soon).

Hi Devin, Jason-

I've been behind on my mailing list e-mail for a while, but I really =
like the idea and the patch proposed here. I don't see anything like it =
in head yet, so ... Ping? :)

JN

>> On Jan 4, 2014, at 5:29, "Teske, Devin" <Devin.Teske@fisglobal.com> =
wrote:
>>=20
>>>=20
>>> On Jan 3, 2014, at 10:28 PM, Jason Hellenthal wrote:
>>>=20
>>>> Alright something is a little off about this from a running =
standpoint it did what it is meant to do.
>>>>=20
>>>> Bug1: it seems to have looped back over itself reissuing two =
addresses from the top of the list.
>>>>=20
>>>> Test case:
>>>> I have aliases 0-14 used numbered as such.
>>>> Aliases 0-7 are ipv6
>>>> Aliases 8-14 are ipv4
>>>>=20
>>>> I commented out alias 2 and 6 to break up consecutive order.
>>>>=20
>>>> Alias 8 & 9 appeared to have been run after alias 14.
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> Something is awry but I can't quite pick out what it is yet.
>>>=20
>>>> On Dec 28, 2013, at 23:24, "Teske, Devin" =
<Devin.Teske@fisglobal.com> wrote:
>>>>=20
>>>>> On Dec 27, 2013, at 9:53 PM, <jhellenthal@dataix.net> wrote:
>>>>>=20
>>>>>> Curious what everyone's opinion would be on modifying the =
handling of _aliasN functions or providing a wrapper around it to handle =
non-sequential ordering.
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> My goal on this is simple and based around groupings similiar to =
that of the way user id(1)'s in passwd and group are handled or denoted =
for use on modern systems.
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> I.e.: I would like to achieve this...
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> *_alias[1-99] =3D System type addresses "Importand addresses or =
internal"
>>>>>> *_alias[100-199] =3D Aliases for interface 1
>>>>>> *_alias[200-299] =3D Aliases for interface 2
>>>>>> etc...
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> NOt looking to achieve some sort of prefered naming convention =
for the interface aliases, but loosen them so they may be defined by the =
user in whatever means neccesary to their benefit.
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> In a scheme similiar to above I attempted to set an address on =
every other 4th alias leaving 3 space rule room for insertion of further =
addresses but was surprised when the processing of the aliases ceased at =
the first non-sequential space.
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> So why not just grab every _aliasN no matter of what it is for =
the interface and shove them into an arrary to be processed by a "for" =
statement ? the order would still be kept without having to inspect =
every defintion of alias and incrementing prehistorically.
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> As well this could provide early loading of the addresses into =
their respective arrays so they may be processed and provided to any =
other functions that may need to access them earlier on in script =
fallthrough.
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> Looking at _alias'N' sequentialy feels like a neucense.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> You mean something like the attached?




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7EAEF3AC-DB1B-4D3E-A156-E1E76B765990>