From: Dumas Patrice (dumas@centre-cired.fr)
Date: Tue Aug 29 2000 - 18:19:57 CEST
Michele Andreoli a écrit :
> The values for the interface X can be stored in X.cnf, without problem.
I was not thinking about the storing of setup, but the storing of the
configuration in a running environment, like what is done with /etc/net.conf
from now.
> X.fun call netconfig to start/stop. In netconfig we put a
>
> case $INTERFACE in
> eth*)
> ppp*)
> plip)*
> esac
>
> to handle different methods.
I think it would be good, and handle differencies between the configs.
But that doesn't solve the redundancies in the setting of a network. Maybe a
solution would be to put manual_config() and set_default() in /etc/utils ?
> Maybe, the good solution is to introduce a routing.fun and setup/routing,
> able to handle the packets patch between interfaces, if the case.
Well, if you define a network associated to an interface, you do static routing,
no ? Rustic static routing, it's true, but if the muBox is a router between
different subnets, each ones associated with a different interface, this could
be sufficient. I am not an expert at all in this stuff, so maybe I am wrong, but
it seems to me that routing a packet can be easily do with associating a natwork
and netmask to an interface ?
In my opinion, it could be good to have a network.fun for stuff common to all
the interfaces, that is the nameserver, dhcp, and routing. One route could be
defined in the .fun specific to an interface, but in that network.fun you should
define more routes for the interfaces.That should generate a too complicated
.cnf file, maybe...
Pat
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: mulinux-unsubscribe@sunsite.auc.dk
For additional commands, e-mail: mulinux-help@sunsite.auc.dk
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Sat Feb 08 2003 - 15:27:15 CET