Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 08:25:49 -0200 From: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@tcoip.com.br> To: Doug Barton <DougB@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Mike Makonnen <mtm@identd.net>, Gordon Tetlow <gordont@gnf.org>, current@FreeBSD.org, obrien@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: RC NG, ntp and routed Message-ID: <3DF8642D.6060105@tcoip.com.br> In-Reply-To: <20021210024350.GC16008@matrix.identd.net> References: <20021210024350.GC16008@matrix.identd.net> <20021210162208.GJ45512@roark.gnf.org> <3DF61DE4.9070205@tcoip.com.br> <20021210225014.GA22267@matrix.identd.net> <20021211002318.GT45512@roark.gnf.org> <20021211054754.GA23972@matrix.identd.net> <20021211063348.GU45512@roark.gnf.org> <20021211084603.GA24584@matrix.identd.net> <20021211171527.GW45512@roark.gnf.org> <3DF775AC.40507@tcoip.com.br> <20021212053826.GB30023@matrix.identd.net> <20021211220933.G47604-100000@12-234-90-219.client.attbi.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
Doug Barton wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, Mike Makonnen wrote:
>
>
> >I don't understand what you are saying. Why would we have routing run
> after
> >local filesystems are mounted but before the network is up?
>
>
> What if /usr/local is an nfs-mounted partition (like it is on my systems,
> both at home and work)?
As for that, I already answered. If you have /usr/local nfs-mounted, one
of the following two things are happening:
1) You do not use a dynamic router in that host.
2) You use a dynamic router that is not resident in /usr/local, either
by design (you use /usr/sbin/routed), or because you moved it from
/usr/local to a locally-mounted fs.
Let's try to put that in another perspective. Let's consider two
possibilities:
1) You use routed_enable="NO". In that case, nothing will change for
you, except locally mounted fs becoming available a bit earlier.
2) You use routed_enable="YES". This we subdivide in:
2.1) You need a router to mount remote fs. For this case, it follows
that your router, whatever it is, is _not_ located in the remote fs.
2.2) You do not need a router to mount remote fs. Either because all
remote fs are directly connected (ie, on one of the networks you belong
to), or because you have a static route to each of them.
This case might or might not present you with a problem. If you use a
router which is located on a remote fs, then, indeed, the proposed
ordering will cause you trouble. I argue, though, that this
configuration is intrinsically wrong, because it depends on a
particularity if your topology (the fact that the remote filesystems do
not need the dynamic router, but normal operation does).
Now... to me things seem simple. You can mount local fs very early, so
there shouldn't be any trouble having them before network. And if you
have them before network, there shouldn't be any problem having routed
about network2, where it should logically belong. Am I missing something
here?
--
Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS)
Gerencia de Operacoes
Divisao de Comunicacao de Dados
Coordenacao de Seguranca
TCO
Fones: 55-61-313-7654/Cel: 55-61-9618-0904
E-mail: Daniel.Capo@tco.net.br
Daniel.Sobral@tcoip.com.br
dcs@tcoip.com.br
Outros:
dcs@newsguy.com
dcs@freebsd.org
capo@notorious.bsdconspiracy.net
Nature makes boys and girls lovely to look upon so they can be
tolerated until they acquire some sense.
-- William Phelps
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3DF8642D.6060105>