Hi!
Last upload was trying to get in sync with Ubuntu, I didn't see any problems
with that, but let's see your concerns...
> For a start, directly calling /etc/network/if-pre-up.d/vlan is a huge
> layering violation.
We've been calling /etc/network/if-pre-up.d/vlan for a long time, it is how
we setup the vlan ports of a bridge automatically:
bridge-utils (0.9.6-4) unstable; urgency=low
* Add support for autoconfiguring VLAN interfaces, idea and patch
from Paul Slootman. Closes #189386.
-- Santiago Garcia Mantinan <[email protected]> Thu, 8 May 2003 20:21:14 +0200
> Anyway, nowadays ifupdown directly manages vlans and the vconfig
> package is deprecated.
Ok, it's been 9 years since we introduced that, maybe we can do it some
other way, now, any pointer on this?
> I am quite concerned that you decided that a complex script should be
> called for every "auto" interface which appears in the system: this
> could have a serious impact on systems with many interfaces (I have
> firewalls with over hundreds of interfaces configured!).
I suppose you are talking about the udev called bridge-network-interface.sh
script. Well, this is one of the parts inherited from Ubuntu, I can see your
concerns here and I agree that on some scenarios this might cause trouble,
I'm wondering if you did test this to see if it really impacted that much on
those scenarios :-?
I cannot test it on one of those real scenarios, but I just run...
INTERFACE=br0 /lib/udev/bridge-network-interface 1000 times on my old amd
Athlon [email protected] and it took 19 seconds.
> I also doubt that this is generally a good idea, even if it were not
> causing scalability problems, because interfaces marked "auto" should
> only be configured at boot time.
Well, the idea behind this is not bringing up interfaces marked auto, for
that we already have allow-hotplug, but adding interfaces to existing
bridges that have that interface specified as a bridge port.
I can agree however that sometimes having all this done automatically can be
the not wanted action, but I like the posibility that is added with this for
hotpluging stuff to bridges. I'm open to all kind of ideas on how to solve
this posible problems.
For example, we can add /etc/default/bridge-utils and specify there some
variable controlling all this behaviour, I don't know what would be wanted
here, we can implement whatever you feel better there, from a HOTPLUG=false
default (not my favourite) to a HOTPLUG=true (I'd prefer this one) ranging
to some kind of specification of the bridges that can be hotpluged
interfaces into.
What do you think?
> Last but not least, nowadays iproute is able to create bridges by
> itself, so we should investigate if brctl is still needed.
I'll have to check that, iproute is not known for the documentation included
on the package itself, but I doubt it provides everything brctl does. I'm
thinking on a "brctl showstp br0" for example.
Well, sorry has worried you, let's see how we can make this less worrying.
Hoping to hear back from you.
Regards.
--
Manty/BestiaTester -> http://manty.net
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
