Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 15:54:12 -0600 From: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com> To: Toshihiko ARAI <toshi@jp.FreeBSD.org> Cc: nate@yogotech.com (Nate Williams), freebsd-mobile@FreeBSD.org, imp@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Documentation for rc.conf's removable_interfaces? Message-ID: <15240.7812.511063.822660@nomad.yogotech.com> In-Reply-To: <200108251732.f7PHWst26260.toshi@jp.FreeBSD.org> References: <15228.2988.181554.313833@nomad.yogotech.com> <200108200357.f7K3vMn18594.toshi@jp.FreeBSD.org> <15233.22136.524384.459698@nomad.yogotech.com> <200108211348.f7LDmTh30188.toshi@jp.FreeBSD.org> <15234.48176.6699.983659@nomad.yogotech.com> <200108231653.f7NGrO802605.toshi@jp.FreeBSD.org> <15237.14941.939157.115769@nomad.yogotech.com> <200108251732.f7PHWst26260.toshi@jp.FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Thank you for my patch commit.
Thank you for responding to the request. :)
> >> > ps. The below patch is good, although it may be necessary to do a route
> >> > flush in certain cases.
> >>
> >> When I do hot-plug of PC-card Ethernet and USB Ethernet with
> >> more than one environment, former route is left and may become
> >> a problem.
>
> > The same problem exists with me.
>
> >> Therefore I was able to control it with
> >> 'removable_route_flush' variable.
> >> There is a method to add 'removable_route_flush=NO' to
> >> /etc/defaults/rc.conf, but which is better compared with below patch?
> >>
> >> >> - # Clean the routing table
> >> >> - case ${removable_route_flush} in
> >> >> - [Nn][Oo])
> >> >> - ;;
> >> >> - *)
> >> >> - # flush beforehand, just in case....
> >> >> - route -n flush -inet
> >> >> - ;;
> >> >> - esac
>
> > This means we have the potential for two new variables not (yet) in
> > -stable.
>
> > removable_interfaces (which I still don't know what it's supposed to
> > do), and removable_route_flush, which is still not generic enough to
> > work in all cases.
>
> I think that removable_interfaces is unnecessary really. However, I
> feel removable_route_flush useful. Of course you may change
> variable name to a fitter thing.
I agree. However, at this late in the game, the Release Engineer wanted
more documentation on the new variables, so it was easier to remove
non-documented variables than it was to make sure the new variables were
properly documentated.
> When there is only one network interface to use simultaneously,
> we have only to add line of 'removable_route_flush=YES' to rc.conf.
> When a card was removed, all the old route is cleaned. In addition,
> so far this was action of default.
True. However, it doesn't hurt to leave this route in place if there is
only one network card, because there can only be one 'default_router' in
the current configuration setup.
> > In particular, in one situation, I have 2 network cards in my computer.
> > If one type of card is removed (my test network), the routes should not
> > be touched. However, if I remove/insert one the other cards (wireless
> > and/or ethernet for connection to the net), I need the route added
> > and/or removed.
>
> In this case you can use static_routes_<interface> for replacement
> of defaultrouter. This variable is the thing which I added anew,
> you replace it in real interface name and describe it in rc.conf as
> follows.
Good idea. I'm so used to hardcoding the default route on my desktop
boxes I never thought to modify the route.
> static_routes_ed1="net1"
> route_net1="default 11.22.33.44"
> removable_route_flush="NO"
What would be very nice to have is some way to have the same routes that
are added when a card is removed to be flushed. It doesn't appear that
it would be that hard.
> In this setting, route is not changed for the card which is not
> equal to interface name (ed1). Of course when a card was removed,
> it does not do route flush, and deletes route according to setting
> of variable.
>
> I'm sorry. It is description lack till now.
> I think that manual of /etc/pccard_ether is necessary.
Very much agreed, but don't feel that it's solely your responsibility to
document everything.
> > Having the route explicitly removed/added when I insert/remove cards
> > does not work. However, I suspect this is not a 'common' situation, so
> > I don't believe the code needs to support it.
>
> > The code *does* need to support normal activities for laptops, and for
> > most people I suspect that means adding/removing the default route when
> > a network card is inserted/removed.
>
> > Do others have an opinion on this? What is the default behavior
> > 'out-of-the-box' that FreeBSD should support when a network card is
> > inserted? For 4.4, I don't think we have time to get it working in all
> > cases, but the current setup doesn't work in the normal case.
>
> > Insertion:
> > 1) DHCP should be supported (of course)
> > 2) If DHCP is not used, should FreeBSD add a default route
>
> > Removal
> > 1) DHCP leases are lost
> > 2) Should the default route be flushed (I'm not sure DHCP does this for us)?
>
> I think that it is YES for a beginner.
Then we need to add an explicit 'route flush' in /etc/pccard_ether.
Nate
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-mobile" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15240.7812.511063.822660>