Menu
▾
▴
devil-linux-develop
|
From: Friedrich L. <fl...@fl...> - 2004-02-10 22:47:26
|
Hi Bruce! You might have read that Arnaud Gomes-do-Vale is working on IPv6 support for DL. But this implies that he has to modify the syntax for the routing entries in /etc/sysconfig/nic/ifcfg-ethX and replace the : with a | as the : is used in IPv6 addresses. Now to have consistent syntax in the routing syntax - it makes the documentation much less confusing to the users and saves us a lot of possible troubles - I want to change the syntax for IPv4 too when integrating Arnauds changes for IPv6. Not much fuzz about that _but_ the crux is that it would introduce troubles during upgrading. So could you possible prepare the update script to take this into account, but not checking in those changes till I've got the contributions of Arnaud applied? -- MfG / Regards Friedrich Lobenstock ____________________________________________________________________ Friedrich Lobenstock Linux Services Lobenstock URL: http://www.lsl.at/ Email: fl...@fl... ____________________________________________________________________ |
|
From: Bruce S. <bw...@ar...> - 2004-02-11 13:33:30
|
> Hi Bruce! Hi! :-) > You might have read that Arnaud Gomes-do-Vale is working on IPv6 support > for DL. But this implies that he has to modify the syntax for the routing > entries in /etc/sysconfig/nic/ifcfg-ethX and replace the : with a | as the > : is used in IPv6 addresses. > > Now to have consistent syntax in the routing syntax - it makes the > documentation much less confusing to the users and saves us a lot of > possible troubles - I want to change the syntax for IPv4 too when > integrating Arnauds changes for IPv6. > > Not much fuzz about that _but_ the crux is that it would introduce troubles > during upgrading. So could you possible prepare the update script to take > this into account, but not checking in those changes till I've got the > contributions of Arnaud applied? The upgrade script doesn't look inside those files, it only compares them to see if they are different. Your changes shouldn't cause any problems with the current upgrade script. - BS |
|
From: Friedrich L. <fl...@fl...> - 2004-02-11 14:02:47
|
Bruce Smith wrote on 11.02.2004 14:32 MET: > >>You might have read that Arnaud Gomes-do-Vale is working on IPv6 support >>for DL. But this implies that he has to modify the syntax for the routing >>entries in /etc/sysconfig/nic/ifcfg-ethX and replace the : with a | as the >>: is used in IPv6 addresses. >> >>Now to have consistent syntax in the routing syntax - it makes the >>documentation much less confusing to the users and saves us a lot of >>possible troubles - I want to change the syntax for IPv4 too when >>integrating Arnauds changes for IPv6. >> >>Not much fuzz about that _but_ the crux is that it would introduce troubles >>during upgrading. So could you possible prepare the update script to take >>this into account, but not checking in those changes till I've got the >>contributions of Arnaud applied? > > > The upgrade script doesn't look inside those files, it only compares > them to see if they are different. Your changes shouldn't cause any > problems with the current upgrade script. I meant, could you please add the transformation from old to new format to the update script, as just copying the ifcfg-XXXX files will break the system when I change the syntax for adding routes. -- MfG / Regards Friedrich Lobenstock ____________________________________________________________________ Friedrich Lobenstock Linux Services Lobenstock URL: http://www.lsl.at/ Email: fl...@fl... ____________________________________________________________________ |
|
From: Bruce S. <bw...@ar...> - 2004-02-11 14:16:24
|
> >>You might have read that Arnaud Gomes-do-Vale is working on IPv6 support > >>for DL. But this implies that he has to modify the syntax for the routing > >>entries in /etc/sysconfig/nic/ifcfg-ethX and replace the : with a | as the > >>: is used in IPv6 addresses. > >> > >>Now to have consistent syntax in the routing syntax - it makes the > >>documentation much less confusing to the users and saves us a lot of > >>possible troubles - I want to change the syntax for IPv4 too when > >>integrating Arnauds changes for IPv6. > >> > >>Not much fuzz about that _but_ the crux is that it would introduce troubles > >>during upgrading. So could you possible prepare the update script to take > >>this into account, but not checking in those changes till I've got the > >>contributions of Arnaud applied? > > > > The upgrade script doesn't look inside those files, it only compares > > them to see if they are different. Your changes shouldn't cause any > > problems with the current upgrade script. > > I meant, could you please add the transformation from old to new format to > the update script, as just copying the ifcfg-XXXX files will break the > system when I change the syntax for adding routes. OK, I'm with you now. (it's early here :) Although I'm not sure how to handle that. If I simply "s/:/|/g", won't it will break the valid IPv6 routes? (and IP aliases?) - BS |
|
From: Friedrich L. <fl...@fl...> - 2004-02-11 15:02:48
|
Bruce Smith wrote on 11.02.2004 15:15 MET: >>>>Now to have consistent syntax in the routing syntax - it makes the >>>>documentation much less confusing to the users and saves us a lot of >>>>possible troubles - I want to change the syntax for IPv4 too when >>>>integrating Arnauds changes for IPv6. >>>> >>>>Not much fuzz about that _but_ the crux is that it would introduce troubles >>>>during upgrading. So could you possible prepare the update script to take >>>>this into account, but not checking in those changes till I've got the >>>>contributions of Arnaud applied? >>> >>>The upgrade script doesn't look inside those files, it only compares >>>them to see if they are different. Your changes shouldn't cause any >>>problems with the current upgrade script. >> >>I meant, could you please add the transformation from old to new format to >>the update script, as just copying the ifcfg-XXXX files will break the >>system when I change the syntax for adding routes. > > > OK, I'm with you now. (it's early here :) > > Although I'm not sure how to handle that. If I simply "s/:/|/g", > won't it will break the valid IPv6 routes? (and IP aliases?) Ok, then I will need to give you the right sed rules. From my head I the following could be a possible solution (though not tested yet): sed -e "s/^\(ROUTE.*\):/\0|/" -- MfG / Regards Friedrich Lobenstock ____________________________________________________________________ Friedrich Lobenstock Linux Services Lobenstock URL: http://www.lsl.at/ Email: fl...@fl... ____________________________________________________________________ |
|
From: Bruce S. <bw...@ar...> - 2004-02-11 15:29:31
|
> > Although I'm not sure how to handle that. If I simply "s/:/|/g", > > won't it will break the valid IPv6 routes? (and IP aliases?) > > Ok, then I will need to give you the right sed rules. > > From my head I the following could be a possible solution (though not > tested yet): > sed -e "s/^\(ROUTE.*\):/\0|/" Wouldn't that only change the first : to | ? - BS |
|
From: Friedrich L. <fl...@fl...> - 2004-02-11 15:39:37
|
Bruce Smith wrote on 11.02.2004 16:28 MET: >>>Although I'm not sure how to handle that. If I simply "s/:/|/g", >>>won't it will break the valid IPv6 routes? (and IP aliases?) >> >>Ok, then I will need to give you the right sed rules. >> >> From my head I the following could be a possible solution (though not >>tested yet): >> sed -e "s/^\(ROUTE.*\):/\0|/" > > > Wouldn't that only change the first : to | ? I will go over it and come back to you when I have a final sed expression. In the meantime you can think about how this could possibly integrated into the update utility as generic as possible - eg. by defining in a filter config file which filters to apply to a specific set of files. Filter might not be the right expression, transformation program might be more to the point. -- MfG / Regards Friedrich Lobenstock ____________________________________________________________________ Friedrich Lobenstock Linux Services Lobenstock URL: http://www.lsl.at/ Email: fl...@fl... ____________________________________________________________________ |
|
From: Bruce S. <bw...@ar...> - 2004-02-11 15:51:53
|
> >>>Although I'm not sure how to handle that. If I simply "s/:/|/g", > >>>won't it will break the valid IPv6 routes? (and IP aliases?) > >> > >>Ok, then I will need to give you the right sed rules. > >> > >> From my head I the following could be a possible solution (though not > >>tested yet): > >> sed -e "s/^\(ROUTE.*\):/\0|/" > > > > Wouldn't that only change the first : to | ? > > I will go over it and come back to you when I have a final sed expression. My main problem is I know nothing about IPv6, so I don't know what to look for. i.e. Will a normal IPv6 ROUTE contain legal colons? (:) Can you show me a couple example ifcfg files? For v4 & v6 both? > In the meantime you can think about how this could possibly integrated into > the update utility as generic as possible - eg. by defining in a filter > config file which filters to apply to a specific set of files. Filter might > not be the right expression, transformation program might be more to the point. OK, I'll take a look. - BS |
|
From: Arnaud Gomes-do-V. <Arn...@ir...> - 2004-02-11 15:59:21
|
Bruce Smith <bw...@ar...> writes: > My main problem is I know nothing about IPv6, so I don't know what to > look for. i.e. Will a normal IPv6 ROUTE contain legal colons? (:) Yes it will. The usual form for an IPv6 address is something like aaaa:bbbb::cccc:dddd:eeee/XX where "::" means "enough :0000: blocks" and /XX is the netmask. However, in its current state, my patch separates ROUTE and IPV6ROUTE so this should be no problem. -- Arnaud |
|
From: Friedrich L. <fl...@fl...> - 2004-02-11 16:07:28
|
Arnaud Gomes-do-Vale wrote on 11.02.2004 16:58 MET: > ....However, in its current state, my patch > separates ROUTE and IPV6ROUTE so this should be no problem. I know but to keep the confusion down we should have the same syntax for both ROUTE and IPV6ROUTE. That's what I want to do. -- MfG / Regards Friedrich Lobenstock ____________________________________________________________________ Friedrich Lobenstock Linux Services Lobenstock URL: http://www.lsl.at/ Email: fl...@fl... ____________________________________________________________________ |
|
From: Arnaud Gomes-do-V. <Arn...@ir...> - 2004-02-11 16:23:32
|
Friedrich Lobenstock <fl...@fl...> writes: > I know but to keep the confusion down we should have the same syntax > for both ROUTE and IPV6ROUTE. That's what I want to do. Yes, but upgrades should not be a problem as IPV6ROUTE does not currently exist. -- Arnaud |
|
From: Friedrich L. <fl...@fl...> - 2004-02-11 16:42:05
|
Arnaud Gomes-do-Vale wrote on 11.02.2004 17:22 MET: > Friedrich Lobenstock <fl...@fl...> writes: > > >>I know but to keep the confusion down we should have the same syntax >>for both ROUTE and IPV6ROUTE. That's what I want to do. > > > Yes, but upgrades should not be a problem as IPV6ROUTE does not > currently exist. > If I change the syntax of ROUTE to match one of IPV6ROUTE (= using '|' instead of ':') then we need to take care of updating configurations from before the change (eg. 1.0.x and 1.1.y y<=2) to the new syntax. -- MfG / Regards Friedrich Lobenstock ____________________________________________________________________ Friedrich Lobenstock Linux Services Lobenstock URL: http://www.lsl.at/ Email: fl...@fl... ____________________________________________________________________ |
|
From: Arnaud Gomes-do-V. <Arn...@ir...> - 2004-02-11 16:51:25
|
Friedrich Lobenstock <fl...@fl...> writes: > If I change the syntax of ROUTE to match one of IPV6ROUTE (= using '|' > instead of ':') then we need to take care of updating configurations > from before the change (eg. 1.0.x and 1.1.y y<=2) to the new syntax. I know. However, only the ROUTE variable needs be modified, so the presence of : in IPv6 routes won't affect the sed lines. This begins to sound quite confusing, we should stop arguing when we in fact agree. :-) -- Arnaud |
|
From: Friedrich L. <fl...@fl...> - 2004-02-11 16:56:46
|
Arnaud Gomes-do-Vale wrote on 11.02.2004 17:50 MET: > Friedrich Lobenstock <fl...@fl...> writes: > > >>If I change the syntax of ROUTE to match one of IPV6ROUTE (= using '|' >>instead of ':') then we need to take care of updating configurations >>from before the change (eg. 1.0.x and 1.1.y y<=2) to the new syntax. > > > I know. However, only the ROUTE variable needs be modified, so the > presence of : in IPv6 routes won't affect the sed lines. Excatelly (please see subject) that's what I am talking about. Your IPv6 stuff is in NO way affected - but it creates an urge for a change in the IPv4 routing stuff. That change is what I am currently preparing for. > > This begins to sound quite confusing, we should stop arguing when we > in fact agree. :-) > We totally agree :-) -- MfG / Regards Friedrich Lobenstock ____________________________________________________________________ Friedrich Lobenstock Linux Services Lobenstock URL: http://www.lsl.at/ Email: fl...@fl... ____________________________________________________________________ |
|
From: Friedrich L. <fl...@fl...> - 2004-02-11 16:09:14
|
Bruce Smith wrote on 11.02.2004 16:51 MET: >>>>From my head I the following could be a possible solution (though not >>>>tested yet): >>>> sed -e "s/^\(ROUTE.*\):/\0|/" >>> >>>Wouldn't that only change the first : to | ? >> >>I will go over it and come back to you when I have a final sed expression. > > My main problem is I know nothing about IPv6, so I don't know what to > look for. i.e. Will a normal IPv6 ROUTE contain legal colons? (:) > Can you show me a couple example ifcfg files? For v4 & v6 both? I will give you the relevant sed expression so don't worry. -- MfG / Regards Friedrich Lobenstock ____________________________________________________________________ Friedrich Lobenstock Linux Services Lobenstock URL: http://www.lsl.at/ Email: fl...@fl... ____________________________________________________________________ |
