Darren J Moffat writes: > What is the reason for having a separate DHCP eventhook script per > protocol ? > > This surprised me particularly given we have just gone down the path of > merging things like hosts(4) and ipnodes(4) it seems very strange to add > a new place where there is a distinction between v4 and v6 in a > filesystem path name. > > I believe it would be a compatible change to have dhcpagent(4) pass 3 > arguments to /etc/dhcp/eventhook instead of the current 2 (action and > interface), where the new third argument indicated v4 or v6.
The reason is two-fold. First, the administrative semantics are different. With v4, you'll get per-logical interface notifications, while with v6, you won't. (Or, more precisely: the v6 notification will supply the name of the interface used for control, and won't give you the name of the individual logical interface plumbed or unplumbed by dhcpagent because it's not an administrative unit.) But the second reason is the most important one: it wouldn't be compatible. Existing eventhook scripts aren't aware that this third argument exists, so they don't know that they need to do anything special. If I added a third argument, then it would run the risk of having those existing scripts do unexpected things. I agree that it's unfortunate to fork v4 and v6 here, especially given the history, but I don't quite see a good way around it. -- James Carlson, KISS Network <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
