Re: Need to limit turning on ip_forwarding...

[<jam...@te...>]

> Yeah, due to the different way each operating system and version of linux
> stores routing information and the different details that are stored,
there
> are currently 12 different versions of that function! Some like
turbo-linux-lib.pl,
> msc-linux-lib.pl, mandrake-linux-lib.pl and cobalt-linux-lib.pl are
exactly the
> same as redhat-linux-lib.pl (they are really just symlinks on my
development system).
>
> Because of the different options each OS offers, the user interface
cannot be
> the same on all of them .. which would make the abstraction that you
suggested
> tough. I know, because I tried it before :(  The DNS form on the other
hand does
> do that kind of abstraction, because every OS has basically the same
options ..

I see the light now.  I spent most of the day wrestling with the router
code to
understand it better, and now I can see really for now the best thing to do
is to
get it working in the redhat one.  The thing that was the biggest clue was
the net
versus host routes in the redhat config.  This of course makes no sense
under solaris.
Anyway, I guess I am going to get it working under redhat linux the way my
company
wants it, and if you find the changes usable then it should be easy to port
to the ones that it applies.

Actually, I suspect changes I make to the routing part even still will not
be
acceptable to you, as one of the things we want to do is not use RedHat's
GATEWAY and GATEWAYDEV entries for default routes.  The reason is that we
in
many cases may need multiple default routes, and that mechanism does not
map well.
So probably what I will end up with is something that Shows:

     - whether or not ip forwarding is turned on.
     - Static Routes
     - active routes.
     - a button beside each static route to remove it or edit it.
     - a button to add a new static route.
     - a button to alter the ip forwarding state.

I am not sure if I want to have a button to alter non-static routes.
If I did, I would certainly have that controlled by a seperate acl.
Anyway, the thing will look a lot more like the interfaces sub module,
and would store default routes along with other routes in static route
file.

So when I am done, it will be radically different.  I will send a patch
anyway,
but I am not sure you will want it (-;

Cheers...james