devil-linux-develop

Re: [Devil-linux-develop] Support for IPv6 and bonding

[Heiko Z. <he...@zu...>]

Hi Arnaud,

> First, excuse me if this mail is not the proper way of sending
> improvements to Devil Linux, as I have just subscribed to this list.

Almost perfect. ;-)
That's what we usually suggest:
http://www.devil-linux.org/newdoc/ch03s03.html
Do you have a URL where we get ifenslave ?

> I have taken up Francois Dumont's work on IPv6 and bonding support. At
> the moment, I have working support for both with just a few changes in
> /etc/init.d/network. I have not rebuilt the CD distribution, though,
> so the ifenslave binary (necessary for bonding) is just sitting in
> /etc. The IPv6 routing syntax is derived from the IPv4 syntax in Devil
> 1.0.x, but not the same because the : char is obviously needed in IPv6
> addresses. So I just used % as a separator because it was the first
> choice that crossed my mind; is this correct or even important?

Friedrich? You're the master of disaster, I mean routing.

> I have attached a patch against /etc/init.d/network from Devil Linux
> 1.0.4. The ifenslave binary I used is the one from my Fedora Core
> workstation, which just happened to work.

[....]

> I hope I will be able to rebuild a working distro with ifenslave
> included in the next few days.

So I guess you even add ifenslave for us?
Great :-))

-- 

Regards
  Heiko Zuerker
  http://www.devil-linux.org

Re: [Devil-linux-develop] Support for IPv6 and bonding

[Arnaud Gomes-do-V. <Arn...@ir...>]

"Heiko Zuerker" <he...@zu...> writes:

> Do you have a URL where we get ifenslave ?

/usr/src/linux/Documentation/networking/ifenslave.c :-)

>> I hope I will be able to rebuild a working distro with ifenslave
>> included in the next few days.
>
> So I guess you even add ifenslave for us?

I will try anyway. I have also thought of a few possible bugs
introduced by my patch, so expect a fixed version in a few days.

-- 
Arnaud

Re: [Devil-linux-develop] Support for IPv6 and bonding

[Friedrich L. <fl...@fl...>]

Heiko Zuerker wrote on 08.01.2004 19:33 MET:
>
> Arnaud Gomes-do-Vale wrote:
> 
>>I have taken up Francois Dumont's work on IPv6 and bonding support. At
>>the moment, I have working support for both with just a few changes in
>>/etc/init.d/network. I have not rebuilt the CD distribution, though,
>>so the ifenslave binary (necessary for bonding) is just sitting in
>>/etc. The IPv6 routing syntax is derived from the IPv4 syntax in Devil
>>1.0.x, but not the same because the : char is obviously needed in IPv6
>>addresses. So I just used % as a separator because it was the first
>>choice that crossed my mind; is this correct or even important?
> 
> 
> Friedrich? You're the master of disaster, I mean routing.

Heiko, you'll for sure get a revenge for that ;-)


Arnaud Gomes-do-Vale wrote on 09.01.2004 00:53 MET:
>
>> ...I have also thought of a few possible bugs
>> introduced by my patch, so expect a fixed version in a few days.

I would prefere the '|' instead of the '%' then, but anyway send
me your patches when you've reworked them and I will check them.


-- 
MfG / Regards
Friedrich Lobenstock
____________________________________________________________________
Friedrich Lobenstock                       Linux Services Lobenstock
URL: http://www.lsl.at/                         Email: fl...@fl...
____________________________________________________________________

Re: [Devil-linux-develop] Support for IPv6 and bonding

[Heiko Z. <he...@zu...>]

Friedrich Lobenstock wrote:
> Heiko Zuerker wrote on 08.01.2004 19:33 MET:
> 
>>
>> Arnaud Gomes-do-Vale wrote:
>>
>>> I have taken up Francois Dumont's work on IPv6 and bonding support. At
>>> the moment, I have working support for both with just a few changes in
>>> /etc/init.d/network. I have not rebuilt the CD distribution, though,
>>> so the ifenslave binary (necessary for bonding) is just sitting in
>>> /etc. The IPv6 routing syntax is derived from the IPv4 syntax in Devil
>>> 1.0.x, but not the same because the : char is obviously needed in IPv6
>>> addresses. So I just used % as a separator because it was the first
>>> choice that crossed my mind; is this correct or even important?
>>
>>
>>
>> Friedrich? You're the master of disaster, I mean routing.
> 
> 
> Heiko, you'll for sure get a revenge for that ;-)

:-))

OT (was Re: [Devil-linux-develop] Support for IPv6 and bonding)

[Friedrich L. <fl...@fl...>]

Heiko Zuerker wrote on 09.01.2004 02:29 MET:
> Friedrich Lobenstock wrote:
> 
>> Heiko Zuerker wrote on 08.01.2004 19:33 MET:
>>
>>> Friedrich? You're the master of disaster, I mean routing.
>>
>> Heiko, you'll for sure get a revenge for that ;-)
> 
> :-))

Just watch the commit mailinglist ;-)

-- 
MfG / Regards
Friedrich Lobenstock
____________________________________________________________________
Friedrich Lobenstock                       Linux Services Lobenstock
URL: http://www.lsl.at/                         Email: fl...@fl...
____________________________________________________________________

Re: OT (was Re: [Devil-linux-develop] Support for IPv6 and bonding)

[Heiko Z. <he...@zu...>]

Friedrich Lobenstock wrote:
> Heiko Zuerker wrote on 09.01.2004 02:29 MET:
> 
>> Friedrich Lobenstock wrote:
>>
>>> Heiko Zuerker wrote on 08.01.2004 19:33 MET:
>>>
>>>> Friedrich? You're the master of disaster, I mean routing.
>>>
>>>
>>> Heiko, you'll for sure get a revenge for that ;-)
>>
>>
>> :-))
> 
> 
> Just watch the commit mailinglist ;-)
> 

"Gehe direkt ins Gefaegnis, gehe nicht ueber Los." ;-)

Heiko

Re: [Devil-linux-develop] Support for IPv6 and bonding

[Heiko Z. <he...@zu...>]

Friedrich Lobenstock wrote:
> Heiko Zuerker wrote on 08.01.2004 19:33 MET:
> 
>>
>> Arnaud Gomes-do-Vale wrote:
>>
>>> ...I have also thought of a few possible bugs
>>> introduced by my patch, so expect a fixed version in a few days.
> 
> 
> I would prefere the '|' instead of the '%' then, but anyway send
> me your patches when you've reworked them and I will check them.

I actually would stay away from '|', since it's special meaning on the 
command line. What's about using the '@', this would even make sense 
since it means (at).

Heiko

Re: [Devil-linux-develop] Support for IPv6 and bonding

[Friedrich L. <fl...@fl...>]

Heiko Zuerker wrote on 09.01.2004 02:53 MET:
> Friedrich Lobenstock wrote:
> 
>> I would prefere the '|' instead of the '%' then, but anyway send
>> me your patches when you've reworked them and I will check them.
> 
> I actually would stay away from '|', since it's special meaning on the 
> command line. What's about using the '@', this would even make sense 
> since it means (at).

May I remind you that we are not on the command line.

Take a look:

with %
IPV6ROUTE="3ffd:1:2::/48%3ffd:1:2:ffff::2"
IPv6ROUTE="$IPV6ROUTE 3ffd:1:3::/48%3ffd:1:2:ffff::2"

with @
IPV6ROUTE="3ffd:1:2::/48@3ffd:1:2:ffff::2"
IPv6ROUTE="$IPV6ROUTE 3ffd:1:3::/48@3ffd:1:2:ffff::2"

with |
IPV6ROUTE="3ffd:1:2::/48|3ffd:1:2:ffff::2"
IPv6ROUTE="$IPV6ROUTE 3ffd:1:3::/48|3ffd:1:2:ffff::2"

IMO the '|' separates both sides optically better than '%'
or '@' do because it comes closer to the ':'.

-- 
MfG / Regards
Friedrich Lobenstock
____________________________________________________________________
Friedrich Lobenstock                       Linux Services Lobenstock
URL: http://www.lsl.at/                         Email: fl...@fl...
____________________________________________________________________

Re: [Devil-linux-develop] Support for IPv6 and bonding

[Heiko Z. <he...@zu...>]

Friedrich Lobenstock wrote:
> Heiko Zuerker wrote on 09.01.2004 02:53 MET:
> 
>> Friedrich Lobenstock wrote:
>>
>>> I would prefere the '|' instead of the '%' then, but anyway send
>>> me your patches when you've reworked them and I will check them.
>>
>>
>> I actually would stay away from '|', since it's special meaning on the 
>> command line. What's about using the '@', this would even make sense 
>> since it means (at).
> 
> 
> May I remind you that we are not on the command line.
> 
> Take a look:
> 
> with %
> IPV6ROUTE="3ffd:1:2::/48%3ffd:1:2:ffff::2"
> IPv6ROUTE="$IPV6ROUTE 3ffd:1:3::/48%3ffd:1:2:ffff::2"
> 
> with @
> IPV6ROUTE="3ffd:1:2::/48@3ffd:1:2:ffff::2"
> IPv6ROUTE="$IPV6ROUTE 3ffd:1:3::/48@3ffd:1:2:ffff::2"
> 
> with |
> IPV6ROUTE="3ffd:1:2::/48|3ffd:1:2:ffff::2"
> IPv6ROUTE="$IPV6ROUTE 3ffd:1:3::/48|3ffd:1:2:ffff::2"
> 
> IMO the '|' separates both sides optically better than '%'
> or '@' do because it comes closer to the ':'.
> 

OK let's vote about it, what do our co-developers/users want?
( Mails with anything else then @ are automatically disqualified ;-) )

Heiko