Re: RC NG, ntp and routed

2002-12-12 Thread Daniel C. Sobral
Mike Makonnen wrote: I still don't see how having the routing daemon start before the network interfaces come up helps you. The correct order seems to me: local filesystem, network, routing, remote filesystem. Am I missing something here? That what it looks like from where I'm sitting too.

Re: RC NG, ntp and routed

2002-12-12 Thread Daniel C. Sobral
Mike Makonnen wrote: On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 03:28:12PM -0200, Daniel C. Sobral wrote: [root@piratinga root]# ls -l /usr/local/sbin/ospfd -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 471392 Dec 1 00:58 /usr/local/sbin/ospfd* [root@piratinga root]# ls -l /usr/local/sbin/bgpd -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 691952 Dec

Re: RC NG, ntp and routed

2002-12-12 Thread Daniel C. Sobral
Doug Barton wrote: On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, Mike Makonnen wrote: I don't understand what you are saying. Why would we have routing run after local filesystems are mounted but before the network is up? What if /usr/local is an nfs-mounted partition (like it is on my systems, both at home and

Re: RC NG, ntp and routed

2002-12-12 Thread Brad Knowles
At 5:41 PM -0800 2002/12/11, Tim Kientzle wrote: The point of the barrier scripts is to provide simple dependencies to other scripts. In particular, NETWORKING should represent a fully-functional network, including any routing or multicast routing that is normally used on this network. It

Re: RC NG, ntp and routed

2002-12-12 Thread Daniel C. Sobral
Brad Knowles wrote: At 5:41 PM -0800 2002/12/11, Tim Kientzle wrote: The point of the barrier scripts is to provide simple dependencies to other scripts. In particular, NETWORKING should represent a fully-functional network, including any routing or multicast routing that is normally

Re: RC NG, ntp and routed

2002-12-12 Thread Mike Makonnen
On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 08:09:24AM -0200, Daniel C. Sobral wrote: I mean that routed is _one_ routing daemon, one that supports the old, would someone please shot it in the head to give it peace, RIP. If you happen to run a modern routing protocol... hell, if you happen to run a

Re: RC NG, ntp and routed

2002-12-12 Thread Daniel C. Sobral
Mike Makonnen wrote: If you are using a daemon essential to network connectivity in /usr/local and at the same time have it (/usr/local) mounted remotely, then you haven't thought things through properly. Listen, I think we're talking past each other here. I _am_ in favour of adding routing

Re: RC NG, ntp and routed

2002-12-12 Thread Tim Kientzle
Brad Knowles wrote: At 5:41 PM -0800 2002/12/11, Tim Kientzle wrote: NETWORKING ... does not, in itself, depend on any filesystems. Sure it does. In order to do anything, you have to run programs -- right? The NETWORKING script does nothing. It runs no programs, therefore it needs no

Re: RC NG, ntp and routed

2002-12-11 Thread Mike Makonnen
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 08:17:50AM +0100, Brad Knowles wrote: I believe that DISKS should be split into DISKS_LOCAL and DISKS_NETWORK. This allows us to get NETWORKING going after DISKS_LOCAL and before DISKS_NETWORK. Don't over-engineer it. This is the order it is done in now. The

Re: RC NG, ntp and routed

2002-12-11 Thread Mike Makonnen
On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 10:33:48PM -0800, Gordon Tetlow wrote: That sounds like a good idea. According to current NETWORKING requirements it just means the network interfaces are brought up, but routing seems to be a reasonable requirement as well. I can't think of a good reason why it would

Re: RC NG, ntp and routed

2002-12-11 Thread Daniel C. Sobral
Gordon Tetlow wrote: On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 02:50:14PM -0800, Mike Makonnen wrote: On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 03:01:24PM -0200, Daniel C. Sobral wrote: On another note, I thought the patch a bit excessive. Here, I just added BEFORE: ntpd to routed. OTOH, it seems that patch did a bit more.

Re: RC NG, ntp and routed

2002-12-11 Thread Daniel C. Sobral
Mike Makonnen wrote: You misunderstood. I meant let's move the routing daemons from /usr/sbin to /sbin. I think if we have routed there we might as well have the others there. Actually we only need to move route6d to /sbin. I can't think of a reason you would need multicast routing before the

Re: RC NG, ntp and routed

2002-12-11 Thread Mike Makonnen
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 09:16:27AM -0200, Daniel C. Sobral wrote: Mm. How about ntpd running in multicast mode? :-) Hah! I knew I should have checked that before I opened my mouth. Cheers. -- Mike Makonnen | GPG-KEY: http://www.identd.net/~mtm/mtm.asc [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Fingerprint:

Re: RC NG, ntp and routed

2002-12-11 Thread Gordon Tetlow
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 12:46:03AM -0800, Mike Makonnen wrote: You misunderstood. I meant let's move the routing daemons from /usr/sbin to /sbin. I think if we have routed there we might as well have the others there. Actually we only need to move route6d to /sbin. I can't think of a reason you

Re: RC NG, ntp and routed

2002-12-11 Thread Daniel C. Sobral
Gordon Tetlow wrote: On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 12:46:03AM -0800, Mike Makonnen wrote: You misunderstood. I meant let's move the routing daemons from /usr/sbin to /sbin. I think if we have routed there we might as well have the others there. Actually we only need to move route6d to /sbin. I

Re: RC NG, ntp and routed

2002-12-11 Thread Tim Kientzle
The point of the barrier scripts is to provide simple dependencies to other scripts. In particular, NETWORKING should represent a fully-functional network, including any routing or multicast routing that is normally used on this network. It does not, in itself, depend on any filesystems. (It

Re: RC NG, ntp and routed

2002-12-11 Thread Mike Makonnen
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 03:28:12PM -0200, Daniel C. Sobral wrote: [root@piratinga root]# ls -l /usr/local/sbin/ospfd -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 471392 Dec 1 00:58 /usr/local/sbin/ospfd* [root@piratinga root]# ls -l /usr/local/sbin/bgpd -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 691952 Dec 1 00:58

Re: RC NG, ntp and routed

2002-12-11 Thread Doug Barton
On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, Mike Makonnen wrote: I don't understand what you are saying. Why would we have routing run after local filesystems are mounted but before the network is up? What if /usr/local is an nfs-mounted partition (like it is on my systems, both at home and work)? btw, someone

Re: RC NG, ntp and routed

2002-12-11 Thread Mike Makonnen
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 10:11:18PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote: On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, Mike Makonnen wrote: I don't understand what you are saying. Why would we have routing run after local filesystems are mounted but before the network is up? What if /usr/local is an nfs-mounted partition

Re: RC NG, ntp and routed

2002-12-10 Thread Gordon Tetlow
On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 06:43:50PM -0800, Mike Makonnen wrote: The following patch should solve your problem. However, it's only a partial solution. It fixes the case for ntpd and ntpdate but not for other network daemons like rpcbind, which still get started _before_ the routing daemons. I

Re: RC NG, ntp and routed

2002-12-10 Thread Daniel C. Sobral
Gordon Tetlow wrote: On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 06:43:50PM -0800, Mike Makonnen wrote: The following patch should solve your problem. However, it's only a partial solution. It fixes the case for ntpd and ntpdate but not for other network daemons like rpcbind, which still get started _before_ the

Re: RC NG, ntp and routed

2002-12-10 Thread Mike Makonnen
On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 03:01:24PM -0200, Daniel C. Sobral wrote: On another note, I thought the patch a bit excessive. Here, I just added BEFORE: ntpd to routed. OTOH, it seems that patch did a bit more. It's not excessive. It's the correct solution. Your solution solves your specific

Re: RC NG, ntp and routed

2002-12-10 Thread Mike Makonnen
On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 08:22:08AM -0800, Gordon Tetlow wrote: I think keeping our boot scripts the same is kind of a pipe dream. I think we should keep our rc.subr the same, but for individual scripts, I think we should just go our own way. I can see how keeping every we possibly can the

Re: RC NG, ntp and routed

2002-12-10 Thread Gordon Tetlow
On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 02:50:14PM -0800, Mike Makonnen wrote: On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 03:01:24PM -0200, Daniel C. Sobral wrote: On another note, I thought the patch a bit excessive. Here, I just added BEFORE: ntpd to routed. OTOH, it seems that patch did a bit more. It's not excessive.

Re: RC NG, ntp and routed

2002-12-10 Thread Mike Makonnen
On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 04:23:18PM -0800, Gordon Tetlow wrote: Ideally, ntpd should require NETWORKING and that should solve all problems. The real problem is that routed is included with DAEMON, not NETWORKING. I think that's the real problem and judging that routed is in /sbin, we could

Re: RC NG, ntp and routed

2002-12-10 Thread Gordon Tetlow
On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 09:47:54PM -0800, Mike Makonnen wrote: On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 04:23:18PM -0800, Gordon Tetlow wrote: Ideally, ntpd should require NETWORKING and that should solve all problems. The real problem is that routed is included with DAEMON, not NETWORKING. I think

Re: RC NG, ntp and routed

2002-12-10 Thread Doug Barton
On Tue, 10 Dec 2002, Gordon Tetlow wrote: I'd like to think about really sitting down and overhauling the rc.d system after 5.0 is branched. I think that it's reasonable to say we should not try to be compatible with NetBSD except for keeping a common rc.subr and major initialization

Re: RC NG, ntp and routed

2002-12-10 Thread Brad Knowles
At 10:33 PM -0800 2002/12/10, Gordon Tetlow wrote: DISKS FILESYSTEMS NETWORKING DAEMON LOGIN DISKS would be things that are needed to get the disks in order to start getting filesystems mounted (vinum, ccd, raidframe and friends). It may be a superflous step. FILESYSTEMS and NETWORKING

RC NG, ntp and routed

2002-12-09 Thread Daniel C. Sobral
I suggest that routed be specified as being BEFORE ntpd. In the absence of a route to the specified servers, ntpd has the annoying behavior of chosing the address of lo0 as the source address for ntp requests, resulting in all sorts of problems. This wouldn't happen in configurations with

Re: RC NG, ntp and routed

2002-12-09 Thread Brad Knowles
At 11:23 AM -0200 2002/12/09, Daniel C. Sobral wrote: I do see one contraindication to this behavior. Most routing protocols also react badly to time changes. Egg and chicken problem, but, personally, and running OSPF, which is one of those protocols that react badly to time changes, I find

Re: RC NG, ntp and routed

2002-12-09 Thread Mike Makonnen
[ cc'd some more people on this ] On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 11:23:58AM -0200, Daniel C. Sobral wrote: I suggest that routed be specified as being BEFORE ntpd. In the absence of a route to the specified servers, ntpd has the annoying behavior of chosing the address of lo0 as the source address