On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 06:28:15PM +0200, Mike Belopuhov wrote: > > Sure, I do. You're trying to push one thing and you don't want to > > hear the concerns about a specific detail of it. > > > > with all respect, i think you don't. otherwise you wouldn't be asking > the questions you're asking. > > we do hear your concerns, but since even before the change if_index > was not static at all the way you seem to be implying snmp requires > it, i don't see a situation drastically changing. if you create all > the interfaces on startup or before you start snmpd and don't destroy/ > re-create them nothing is changed. >
Ok, let's stop this. I don't think you read what I replied before. I didn't say that we're static with if_indexes, just that we shouldn't make it worse. I give up, but please read my next comment below. > >> > Isn't there any other way to do what you want without stopping to > >> > reuse the index? SNMP simply expects that if_indexes are fairly > >> > static, linear, and without holes. Why should we change that in > >> > OpenBSD? Is there any security reason to "randomize" the indexes - > >> > No. > >> > >> or snmp can simply stop assuming things. if_index wasn't created > >> for snmp in the first place. Actually, I think this assumption is wrong. I researched a little bit in BSD history: - RFC 1066 from August 1988 is one of the early SNMP RFC that mention IfIndex - 4.3BSD-Tahoe from June 1988 doesn't have if_index, I also didn't find in other early BSDs. - 4.3BSD-Reno from June 1990 does have it. You can even find a new comment "/* XXX fast fix for SNMP, going away soon */" on top of if.h. So it seems that if_index was added _for_ SNMP. > > Of course, everyone else is wrong, let's change the world! IfIndex is > > used by SNMP since at least 1988 (RFC 1066) and many many tools have > > adopted it expecting this behaviour. Anyway, just go ahead and do the > > stuff. I don't care, it is not a big issue for snmpd. But I still > > don't see the point of changing the semantics instead of finding > > another way to do what you want. Unless there is a security issue or > > similar with if_indexes and changing it would actually improve > > something. Blah. > > no need to get upset. mpi's change does improve things. we want to > make full use of if_index' initial design and use it as a reference > to the interface in the mp network stack . it has nothing to do with > a badly designed protocol from the eighties. Oh, come on. SNMP is as badly designed as many other things that we're using every day. Do you suggest to rm snmpd because the protocol is badly designed? Reyk
