Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: networking startup script rewrite

["Michael J. Cohen" <mjc@ispvip.biz>]

> I'm not really sure what you regard as the failings of the current
> /init.d/net configuration. I have to say that I spent a couple of days
> struggling with it myself, and although I did whine about it at the
> time (see my postings <http://tinyurl.com/qsjh>) the upshot is that I
> rather like it the way it is.

Having /etc/init.d/net.eth[1,2,..] installed by the user does not mean that it 
is automagically updated with a new install or with etc-update.

only basic configuration is achieved with the current setup.

etc-updating 99 files is a pain, but it often happens when upgrading 
baselayout, etc.  If a user wipes out his configs for iptables etc by 
overwriting accidentally, he is in a bind.  However if we do not provide a /
etc/conf.d/net and only a /etc/conf.d/net.sample; this is allievated.

> I'd agree that if a script to call `brctl` appropriately was installed
> by net-misc/bridge-utils then it would make configuration a lot easier,
> but this is a simple addition to a single package, rather than a
> rewrite of the whole framework. I really would like to see such an
> inclusion, considering that the bridging code is, I believe,
> incorporated into the upcoming 2.6.

Currently, there are several unrelated scripts for each userspace networking 
tool. iptables, (your proposed bridge-utils), ipsec...
This is a bit backwards, and it relies on the initscripts' ability to order 
correctly.  If we load net as one script, we know exactly what is going on 
and in what order and thus might be able to speed up booting by backgrounding 
processes that are known to potentially take time.

The new system would most likely call the related /etc/init.d/bridge script or 
similar in order to set things up, rather than invoking brctl directly.  This 
would save some headaches with updating the script every time we package up 
some new network tool.

> Bridging works fine here & fairly seamlessly with the current
> framework. I found that everything fell into place once I moved
> /etc/conf.d/net to /etc/conf.d/net.eth0 & /etc/conf.d/net.eth1, so that
> it's contents (particularly with respect to gateways) are ignored by my
> /etc/conf.d/net.br0 script. Not much in addition is required to get
> everything up & running - I would have been glad to provide my scripts,
> if I had seen your posting to -user.

What about wireless + roaming, advanced routing/bridging, ipsec, vpns, vlans, 
pppoe... all of these things either are not supported or are broken up into 
tiny bits of configuration files everywhere.  It would be much easier if we 
had one manual with plenty of examples and one configuration file for people 
to edit.  Not only is it easier on the developers, but it is easier on the 
user for updates and for configuration.  The user no longer needs to hunt 
down where he made what change to what interface in what file.

> I don't know much (erm... well, anything) about VLANs, so I'm probably
> missing some of your reasoning against the current system. Actually, I
> don't know much about anything, so maybe you could explain (like an RFC
> or a GLEP, maybe?), listing the problems of the current system & how
> your solution would resolve them..?

It was mentioned to me that it was quite challenging to add VLAN suport into 
the current net scripts.  

> I'm sorry if I seem biased or antagonistic, but really don't like the
> idea of uniting the network scripts in anyway like you describe. I may
> have struggled with them myself, but that's only because I'm so
> incompetent - I got there in the end. I once tried parsing one of
> Mandrake's network initialisation scripts, but floundered wildly - with
> Gentoo you know intuitively to look for iptables stuff in
> /etc/conf.d/iptables and so on.

Seems like it would make more sense to me if /etc/conf.d/net was your one stop 
shop for all your networking needs.

> The only improvements I'd no ask for in the init scripts are more
> commenting - I'm firmly of the school that believes in 2 lines of
> comments for every line of code. I'd like to see all code
> human-readable for a newbie to the language.

Agreed.  sometimes 5 or 6 is warranted for things like sed. :)

------
Michael


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list