On 12 September 2013 18:14, Reyk Floeter <r...@openbsd.org> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 05:53:42PM +0200, Mike Belopuhov wrote: >> looks like you misunderstand the problem we're dealing with here. >> > > Sure, I do. You're trying to push one thing and you don't want to > hear the concerns about a specific detail of it. >
with all respect, i think you don't. otherwise you wouldn't be asking the questions you're asking. we do hear your concerns, but since even before the change if_index was not static at all the way you seem to be implying snmp requires it, i don't see a situation drastically changing. if you create all the interfaces on startup or before you start snmpd and don't destroy/ re-create them nothing is changed. >> >> FWIW it would be interesting to modify tun(4) so that it doesn't >> >> need to detach/reattach itself when switching between mode, this >> >> would allow us to stop reusing the last index. >> >> >> > >> > Or you could simply rewrite tun(4)? >> > >> > Isn't there any other way to do what you want without stopping to >> > reuse the index? SNMP simply expects that if_indexes are fairly >> > static, linear, and without holes. Why should we change that in >> > OpenBSD? Is there any security reason to "randomize" the indexes - >> > No. >> > >> > Reyk >> > >> >> or snmp can simply stop assuming things. if_index wasn't created >> for snmp in the first place. > > Of course, everyone else is wrong, let's change the world! IfIndex is > used by SNMP since at least 1988 (RFC 1066) and many many tools have > adopted it expecting this behaviour. Anyway, just go ahead and do the > stuff. I don't care, it is not a big issue for snmpd. But I still > don't see the point of changing the semantics instead of finding > another way to do what you want. Unless there is a security issue or > similar with if_indexes and changing it would actually improve > something. Blah. > > Reyk no need to get upset. mpi's change does improve things. we want to make full use of if_index' initial design and use it as a reference to the interface in the mp network stack . it has nothing to do with a badly designed protocol from the eighties.
