Anand Kumria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 10:19:42AM +0200, Hans Ulrich Niedermann wrote: >> Anand Kumria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 01:56:14AM +0200, Hans Ulrich Niedermann wrote: >> >> Package: zeroconf >> >> Version: 0.6-1 >> >> Severity: wishlist >> >> >> >> >> >> It would be very nice if one could add a DISABLE_ZEROCONF=yes switch >> >> or something similar to /etc/default/zeroconf. >> > >> > Why would you disable it completely? Why not just blacklist the >> > particular interface you are having problems with?
[...] >> 2. If a problem occurs during the "ifup -a" on boot, there is no >> running system in which one could easily check which of the >> interfaces is actually having the problem. >> >> Completely disable zeroconf it from a rescue system, boot up, and >> then check each interface from the running system is much easier >> than finding out what all the possible interfaces could be called >> like. >> >> If you do a reasonable amount of tunneling, it is not easy to keep >> track of all that tun* and tap* device numbers which you have to >> explictly disable. > > Ahh - okay; zeroconf shouldmore extensively check the link type and only > bother for link/ether device which will solve this problem in the > general case. Hmm... from the RFC: This specification applies to all IEEE 802 Local Area Networks (LANs) [802], including Ethernet [802.3], Token-Ring [802.5] and IEEE 802.11 wireless LANs [802.11], as well as to other link-layer technologies that operate at data rates of at least 1 Mbps, have a round-trip latency of at most one second, and support ARP [RFC826]. Wherever this document uses the term "IEEE 802", the text applies equally to any of these network technologies. I presume a whitelist containing only "link/ether" includes all those? > But I'll add in the disable feature in the next upload. Thank you. Uli -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
