On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 10:52 -0700, Jean Tourrilhes wrote: > Peter Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote : > > > > I don't think that's really right either. For one thing, things like > > DHCP's timeout start counting at about the same time as "ifconfig up", > > and association can take some time. > > That's a bug in DHCP, and DHCP should be fixed. > A nice analogy is Ethernet. The Ethernet layer doesn't enforce > that the user has plug the Ethernet cable in the right port at bootup, > or any port at all, for that matter. Actually, I would like my > Ethernet connection to work even if I plug the Ethernet cable a few > minutes after having booted the box. DHCP should not time out so > easily.
Ethernet is a great analogy, but your argument only works if you ignore how people actually use ethernet. Nobody runs dhclient and expects it to work without the network being plugged in -- they run dhclient when the network becomes available, often via something like ifplugd or NetworkManager, which watch for a connection. They get that connection when you plug the cable in -- and that's where the analogy relates to the issue we're discussing. When the cable is plugged in, you've already chosen which network to "associate" with. You did that when you chose which port on the wall to plug it into. Before you ever have the opportunity to do things like "ifconfig up", you've already consciously performed that step. > Even better, I should be able to plug my laptop in any > Ethernet port when I want and move from one port to another without > having to reboot the laptop or to mess with the network stuff. > Also, maybe I'm connected to my switch, but Oops, I forgot to > connect the switch to the network. It would be nice if it would work > when I eventually connect my switch to the network. Again, currently distributions handle this by monitoring the status, and telling dhclient (or similar) to ask for a lease at the appropriate time. That works, and it's not what's being discussed. > > But why don't we want to add a call to do this? I'd agree that it > > shouldn't be a WE call. > > I know quite a few people still using Red-Hat 9. How are you > going to retrofit already deployed distro with your new call ? I'm not. If a user upgrades their kernel on a distro to one that needs new tools, they're going to have to upgrade tools too. There's no way around that. (Or: they're going to run "yum update" and it's going to DTRT. Not very applicable for RH9, but hey, the question is a total straw-man anyway.) > > There seemed to be general agreement at OLS > > last month that we should really be using netlink for this stuff anyway, > > and it doesn't seem like adding a netlink call is all that painful. > > There are patches on my web page adding Wireless Extensions > over RtNetlink, which seems exactly like what everybody is clamoring > about. They have been sent a couple of time to this mailing list. To > date, I've received *zero* feedback on those. That may be a fair point, but it doesn't address the question that was being asked. -- Peter - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
