From: Michele Andreoli ([email protected])
Date: Wed Aug 30 2000 - 20:57:35 CEST
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 04:16:43PM +0200, Dumas Patrice nicely wrote:
> (I took that point of view from someone, I think you...).
Not possible: this is a detailed opinion; I have only confused opinions,
about :)
> I think it is conceptually good to separate the routing problem and the interface setup
> problem, for the non trivial routing.
>
> > > ROUTES="iface1:address iface1:net:netmask iface2:net:netmask....."
> >
> > The array problem.
>
> That is resolved how ?
I have an Array() function in /etc/utils.
>
> > With the set of values relative to any interface, I can ask the user
> > if defaultroute and gateway is belong this interface.
>
> Why not setup that in the common networking stuff ?
Because, in this case, network.fun have to scan any configured
interface and ask the user for netmask/gateway/broadcast
Anycase, this requires (as you told) some duplication in help
messages about this parameters and theyr default values.
>
> > Summarizing (please help me):
> >
> > interface.fun: addr? network? defaultroute? (peer?)
>
> depending on the interface
Yes. I summarized with the keyword (peer?) any special parameters
for ppp/plip.
Please, discuss this topics:
1. I have to ask for netmask and broadcast for ANY interface?
2. Any interfaces live in own subnetwork, or no?
3. the 'route' command istruct the kernel to move packet toward
a specific interface, based on netmask. Now, is the ipfwadm
command enough to fix rules moving packets from an
interface to another, and what is the common policy?
Michele
-- I'd like to conclude with a positive statement, but I can't remember any. Would two negative ones do? -- Woody Allen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Sat Feb 08 2003 - 15:27:15 CET