> I suggest that natd_interface="" be in the defaults. If you add
> natd_enable=yes to your rc.conf, it is then your responsibility to set
> natd_flags and/or natd_interface to something that will work for you.
>
> In rc.network, if natd_enable is Yes, then it validates that either (or
> both) of natd_flags and natd_interface have non-empty values. If so, it
> starts natd. If natd_enable is Yes and both flags and interface are empty,
> it whines and doesn't start natd.
>
> The only downside I can see to this change is that people who currently have
> Intel Etherexpress NICs and have just natd_enable=yes in their rc.conf would
> have to add natd_interface=fxp0 as part of their next upgrade. Everyone
> else is already going to have a natd_interface=<something> in their rc.conf
> and nothing would need to change. And those of us who want to specify the
> interface in our natd.conf files will have the option of doing so and will
> be able to remove the natd_interface=<something> from our rc.conf.
All of the above is exactly what I thought, and thus totally correct ;)
> Who decided that Intel NICs should get primacy over other brands in this
> case anyway? Were payoffs involved? Was pressure brought to bear? Do we
> need the ISU to investigate? :-)
I wondered about that too.
-Richard
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
