Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 11:27:09 -0500 (CDT) From: Joe Greco <jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com> To: rgrimes@GndRsh.aac.dev.com (Rodney W. Grimes) Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: feedback sought on proposed change to netstart Message-ID: <199604121627.LAA17682@brasil.moneng.mei.com> In-Reply-To: <199604121546.IAA21589@GndRsh.aac.dev.com> from "Rodney W. Grimes" at Apr 12, 96 08:46:55 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Rod,
> >
> > See my previous mail. What if we _remove_ the ifconfig in netstart in the
> > case where there is a start_if.<xxx> file?
> >
> > Theory being, that script is entirely responsible for starting the
> > interface. In my book that may include establishing a physical link, and/or
> > setting up whatever addresses and aliases are appropriate.
> >
> > This seems like a very generalized solution to me (at least, it's what I do
> > here, and it works great for me).
>
> That seems quite reasonable... I have done this by setting ifconfig_${INT}
> to null in /etc/sysconfig. That does have the nasty side effect of of
> echoing the config parameters out twice, but it does what you want.
>
> I have no objection to the removal of if_config ${ifn} ${ifconfig_args]
> if an /etc/start_if.${ifn} is called.
Hi Rod,
Um, well. That would be an acceptable punt, I suppose, but in my "ideal"
situation I would like to still set ifconfig_<xxx> in /etc/sysconfig..
memory aid type thing. :-) (I have numerous boxes with multi interfaces)
Thinking out loud:
1) it does not make a lot of sense to set up a variable that has no effect,
therefore setting ifconfig_<xxx> to nothing in sysconfig makes sense.
2) it's still nice to see a high level explanation of interfaces in
sysconfig... so it would be nice to propagate this data into the
start_if.<xxx> thingie. So then we would keep the ifconfig_<xxx> thingie.
3) that only (easily) works if start_if.xxx is a sourceable shell script..
but the current construction makes that assumption anyways... maybe
that's not a problem.
4) this still hides alias address declarations, it's also not immediately
obvious at the sysconfig level that the interface configuration may actually
be set elsewhere, and could be set to something else entirely.. but that is
not a new problem, and it's not immediately apparent what the fix is.
I guess my conclusion is that this is all an ugly hack, this change only
serves to make it somewhat more functional and flexible. Ideas on how to
elegantly fix it? I don't have any, at least any that retain the same level
of flexibility..
... Joe
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Greco - Systems Administrator jgreco@ns.sol.net
Solaria Public Access UNIX - Milwaukee, WI 414/546-7968
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199604121627.LAA17682>