| 1 |
hey all, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
i've started doing a lot of work on IPv6 stuff in gentoo, to try to get |
| 4 |
us up to snuff with regards to IPv6 support. I've been commiting a lot |
| 5 |
more ebuilds for various things, and more are to come. BUT, an important |
| 6 |
aspect needs fixing. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
init scripts. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
The problem is we need better control of configuring both the IPv4 and |
| 11 |
the IPv6 attributes of an interface. Specifically, we want IPv6 services |
| 12 |
to start if IPv4 networking fails and vice versa. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Along with that, we also need some initscript control over establishing |
| 15 |
tunnels, etc. That issue will be better tackled i think after we have a |
| 16 |
solid general device configuration in place. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Solutions: |
| 19 |
* Seperate net.ethX and net6.ethX scripts. |
| 20 |
Problems: When something fails in current net.ethX script, |
| 21 |
we do 'ifconfig ethX down'. If we do this with co-existing |
| 22 |
v4+v6, we bring down the other form of networking. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Advantages: Lets us have a "provide net" and "provide net6". |
| 25 |
Other scripts can independantly depend on one or the other, or both, |
| 26 |
or have "need net \ use net6", etc. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
More easily allows for IPv6 only networks if in an IPv6 only |
| 29 |
environment. (example: LAN using 6to4 tools) |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
* Both IPv6 and IPv4 handled by an enhanced net.ethX script |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Problems: If v4 setup fails, does the script fail completely, |
| 34 |
or succeed? It can't succeed, because other things that might need |
| 35 |
v4 will subsequently fail. It can't die, because things that need |
| 36 |
the format that *didn't* fail will not be started, even though |
| 37 |
they could have been. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Advantages: |
| 40 |
* Less work to enable a new device. Only have to do |
| 41 |
"rc-update add net.eth0 default" then configure /etc/conf.d/net |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
* Marginally less time spent running scripts |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
* Other solutions? |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
I really prefer the first method, as it provides much finer grained |
| 48 |
control. I've got a net6.ethX script mostly done, but i wanted to get |
| 49 |
some feedback and opinions before fully implementing. The one major |
| 50 |
sticking point is how to deal with the current "do something or die and |
| 51 |
bring the interface down" situation. This behavior would obviously have |
| 52 |
to change. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
-pete |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
-- |
| 58 |
Peter Johanson |
| 59 |
<latexer@g.o> |
Archives