On 05/16/2011 12:49 AM, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> Zachary Kotlarek wrote:
>> On May 15, 2011, at 12:31 PM, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
>>
>>> I'm trying to figure out why it'd be necessary to do this. We
>>> already have the previous configuration of every interface stuffed
>>> away in /run, and we use that
On May 16, 2011, at 12:49 AM, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> I also *think* the only way the cached config might not match the
> running config is if root mucked with the running config manually.
Or when /run is not writable at the time the network scripts execute. Or if the
cached config were lost fo
Zachary Kotlarek wrote:
> On May 16, 2011, at 12:49 AM, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
>
>> I also *think* the only way the cached config might not match the
>> running config is if root mucked with the running config manually.
>
>
> Or when /run is not writable at the time the network scripts execute.
T
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>Zachary Kotlarek wrote:
>> On May 16, 2011, at 12:49 AM, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
>>
>>> I also *think* the only way the cached config might not match the
>>> running config is if root mucked with the running config manually.
>>
>>
>> Or when /run is not writable at the time th
Zachary Kotlarek wrote:
> A compromise might be to provide an `ifreset` script, that does a
> full ipflush, walks the services dir calling a `reset` target, etc.,
> but *not* integrate that script into ifdown.
That seems like a pretty good idea. :-)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital s
