Peter Memishian writes: > > 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. > > Would it be reasonable to make the V4 and V6 action/event names distinct? > e.g., have each V6 event name end in a "_V6" or "6"?
Yes, that'd be possible. That seems roughly equivalent to using a separate script, and you'd have to use separate logic (as the options and such that you'd ordinarily use with dhcpinfo are separate), but it's doable. Is it actually an improvement? It's not clear to me, but if others prefer this over having a separate hook script, I guess I don't have much of a preference myself. -- 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]
