Re: Netconf at conf.au 2008?
also sprach David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008.01.14.0312 +0100]: I think you may be mixing things up, and it may be my fault in ways. I am developing netconf: http://netconf.alioth.debian.org. I am aware of the NETCONF protocol and have considered renaming my project, but looking around, it seemed to me that NETCONF isn't really all that active, and so I chose to keep the name. If people think that wasn't wise, I'm willing to listen... Netconf is the name of the usually annual conference the core Linux networking developer organize. Fun fun fun: name clashes. In Debian, we have debconf, the tool, the protocol and the conference. Now we have netconf, the tool, the protocol and the conference. -- martin | http://madduck.net/ | http://two.sentenc.es/ if you find a spelling mistake in the above, you get to keep it. spamtraps: [EMAIL PROTECTED] digital_signature_gpg.asc Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/)
Re: Netconf at conf.au 2008?
also sprach YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008.01.14.1206 +0100]: Very confusing to me... FYI: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/netconf-devel/2008-January/000214.html However, I am not entirely convinced. I think conference/tool/protocol are far apart enough so that the name does not clash. -- martin | http://madduck.net/ | http://two.sentenc.es/ perhaps debian is concerned more about technical excellence rather than ease of use by breaking software. in the former we may excel. in the latter we have to concede the field to microsoft. guess where i want to go today? -- manoj srivastava spamtraps: [EMAIL PROTECTED] digital_signature_gpg.asc Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/)
Re: Netconf at conf.au 2008?
also sprach Andy Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008.01.12.0752 +0100]: I saw somewhere (maybe in this mailing list a while ago) that there might be a Linux Kernel Developers' Netconf conference at conf.au 2008. I think you may be mixing things up, and it may be my fault in ways. I am developing netconf: http://netconf.alioth.debian.org. I am aware of the NETCONF protocol and have considered renaming my project, but looking around, it seemed to me that NETCONF isn't really all that active, and so I chose to keep the name. If people think that wasn't wise, I'm willing to listen... -- martin | http://madduck.net/ | http://two.sentenc.es/ the only difference between the saint and the sinner is that every saint has a past and every sinner has a future. -- oscar wilde spamtraps: [EMAIL PROTECTED] digital_signature_gpg.asc Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/)
iproute2: removing primary address removes secondaries
Dear list, When I add an address to an interface whose network prefix is the same as that of an address already bound to the interface, the new address becomes a secondary address. As per http://www.policyrouting.org/iproute2.doc.html: secondary --- this address is not used when selecting the default source address for outgoing packets. An IP address becomes secondary if another address within the same prefix (network) already exists. The first address within the prefix is primary and is the tag address for the group of all the secondary addresses. When the primary address is deleted all of the secondaries are purged too. In the following, I want to argue that this is not necessary. I think that removal of a primary address should cause the next address to be promoted to be the default source address and the link-scoped route to be retained. This is basically out of http://bugs.debian.org/429689, the maintainer asked me to turn directly to this list. If I add an address to a device with 'ip add', ip also implicitly adds a link-scoped route according to the netmask. It only does this for primary addresses, so if I add a second address within the same network, the route is not duplicated. Thus, the net effect on the routing table is the same for the following two commands: ip a a 172.16.0.100/12 dev eth0 ip a a 172.16.0.200/12 dev eth0 ip a a 172.16.0.100/12 dev eth0 ip a a 172.16.0.200/32 dev eth0 In the first case, the .200 address becomes a secondary of the .100 address. In the second case, they are both primaries. In both cases, only one /12 link-scoped route will be created. However, in both cases, if I remove the .100 address, the .200 is affected: if it's secondary, it ceases to exist, and if it's primary (i.e. in the /32 case), then the host can no longer use it to communicate to hosts in the same link segment, only to hosts on the other side of the default gateway. I thus question the point of purging secondary addresses. Obviously, only one address can be primary (it is used as source address for packets leaving the machine by the respective route). But if the primary address is removed, the next secondary should be promoted and the route should *not* be deleted. Comments? Cheers, -- martin | http://madduck.net/ | http://two.sentenc.es/ microsoft: for when quality, reliability, and security just aren't that important! spamtraps: [EMAIL PROTECTED] digital_signature_gpg.asc Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/)
why does promote_secondaries default to off? (was: iproute2: removing primary address removes secondaries)
also sprach Daniel Lezcano [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008.01.11.1813 +0100]: There is a tweak in /proc/sys which activate secondaries promotion when a primary is deleted. /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/all/promote_secondaries I think it changes the behavior to the one you wish. Totally. That would have been the last place I had looked. Thank you! Do you have any idea why this isn't on by default? -- martin | http://madduck.net/ | http://two.sentenc.es/ i never go without my dinner. no one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that. -- oscar wilde spamtraps: [EMAIL PROTECTED] digital_signature_gpg.asc Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/)
Re: why does promote_secondaries default to off?
also sprach Daniel Lezcano [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008.01.11.1833 +0100]: This tweak is recent (2.6.16 as far as I remember), so I suppose the reason is to not puzzled people with a changed default behavior. Your instant and helpful responses are most appreciated! -- martin | http://madduck.net/ | http://two.sentenc.es/ a common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof was to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -- douglas adams, mostly harmless spamtraps: [EMAIL PROTECTED] digital_signature_gpg.asc Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/)
