Re: Do you use a value other than AUTO for network_interfaces?

2009-06-03 Thread Brooks Davis
On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 06:06:48PM -0500, Erik Osterholm wrote: On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 12:20:34PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: Up till Sunday in 8-current, and for a long time in general network.subr (part of the rc.d system) has emitted a warning that values of network_interfaces other than

Re: Do you use a value other than AUTO for network_interfaces?

2009-06-03 Thread Angelo Turetta
Doug Barton wrote: If you use a value of network_interfaces other than AUTO please speak up so that we can make an intelligent decision about this issue. Maybe I am wrong, setting network_interfaces is the way I found I had to use to be able to rename cloned interfaces. eg:

Re: Do you use a value other than AUTO for network_interfaces?

2009-06-03 Thread Brooks Davis
On Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 06:18:01PM +0200, Angelo Turetta wrote: Doug Barton wrote: If you use a value of network_interfaces other than AUTO please speak up so that we can make an intelligent decision about this issue. Maybe I am wrong, setting network_interfaces is the way I found I had to

Re: Do you use a value other than AUTO for network_interfaces?

2009-06-03 Thread Erik Osterholm
On Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 09:13:21AM -0500, Brooks Davis wrote: On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 06:06:48PM -0500, Erik Osterholm wrote: On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 12:20:34PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: Up till Sunday in 8-current, and for a long time in general network.subr (part of the rc.d system) has

Do you use a value other than AUTO for network_interfaces?

2009-06-02 Thread Doug Barton
Up till Sunday in 8-current, and for a long time in general network.subr (part of the rc.d system) has emitted a warning that values of network_interfaces other than AUTO are deprecated. I removed that warning in HEAD Sunday, and there is no a discussion about whether or not it should be put back,

Re: Do you use a value other than AUTO for network_interfaces?

2009-06-02 Thread Ruben van Staveren
On 2 Jun 2009, at 21:20, Doug Barton wrote: Up till Sunday in 8-current, and for a long time in general network.subr (part of the rc.d system) has emitted a warning that values of network_interfaces other than AUTO are deprecated. I removed that warning in HEAD Sunday, and there is no a

Re: Do you use a value other than AUTO for network_interfaces?

2009-06-02 Thread Doug Barton
Ruben van Staveren wrote: Being a bit of my own devils advocate here, network_interfaces=AUTO is already true for ipv6. FYI, ipv6_network_interfaces exists for this purpose. Thanks for your post, it's good information to add to the pile. Doug ___

Re: Do you use a value other than AUTO for network_interfaces?

2009-06-02 Thread David Kelly
On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 10:30:46PM +0200, Ruben van Staveren wrote: On 2 Jun 2009, at 21:20, Doug Barton wrote: Up till Sunday in 8-current, and for a long time in general network.subr (part of the rc.d system) has emitted a warning that values of network_interfaces other than AUTO are

Re: Do you use a value other than AUTO for network_interfaces?

2009-06-02 Thread Brooks Davis
On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 03:51:25PM -0500, David Kelly wrote: On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 10:30:46PM +0200, Ruben van Staveren wrote: On 2 Jun 2009, at 21:20, Doug Barton wrote: Up till Sunday in 8-current, and for a long time in general network.subr (part of the rc.d system) has emitted a

Re: Do you use a value other than AUTO for network_interfaces?

2009-06-02 Thread Brooks Davis
On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 10:30:46PM +0200, Ruben van Staveren wrote: On 2 Jun 2009, at 21:20, Doug Barton wrote: Up till Sunday in 8-current, and for a long time in general network.subr (part of the rc.d system) has emitted a warning that values of network_interfaces other than AUTO are

Re: Do you use a value other than AUTO for network_interfaces?

2009-06-02 Thread Randy Bush
I only want to configure only the interfaces that are connected and that I know about. especially in combination with IPv6 there is a nit that you'll get autoconfiguration for all interfaces unless they are all explicitly configured. bingo!

Re: Do you use a value other than AUTO for network_interfaces?

2009-06-02 Thread Randy Bush
To repeat what I wrote earlier today on another list there's no need to worry about hot plugged or newly added interfaces getting magically configured to do dhcp or anything else[0]. such as detected by services such as bind/unbound? randy ___

Re: Do you use a value other than AUTO for network_interfaces?

2009-06-02 Thread Robert Huff
Ruben van Staveren writes: Up till Sunday in 8-current, and for a long time in general network.subr (part of the rc.d system) has emitted a warning that values of network_interfaces other than AUTO are deprecated. I removed that warning in HEAD Sunday, and there is no a discussion

Re: Do you use a value other than AUTO for network_interfaces?

2009-06-02 Thread Brooks Davis
On Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 07:22:34AM +0900, Randy Bush wrote: To repeat what I wrote earlier today on another list there's no need to worry about hot plugged or newly added interfaces getting magically configured to do dhcp or anything else[0]. such as detected by services such as

Re: Do you use a value other than AUTO for network_interfaces?

2009-06-02 Thread Erik Osterholm
On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 12:20:34PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: Up till Sunday in 8-current, and for a long time in general network.subr (part of the rc.d system) has emitted a warning that values of network_interfaces other than AUTO are deprecated. I removed that warning in HEAD Sunday, and