On 10/06/17(Sat) 17:45, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 04:14:16PM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > I'm not fan of your approach because it makes pppoe(4) special, does
> > umb(4) will need 'dynaddr' and 'dyntest' too?
>
> I consider this a quirk in sppp(4), not pppoe or p2p interfaces in general.
> sppp(4) is using these DYN flags which we're toggling. The new ifconfig
> commands are documented in ifconfig(8)'s 'SPPP' section for that reason.
> umb(4) does not use sppp(4).
>
> In my mind, making some IP addresses act as magic toggles for internal
> sppp(4) state flags is a worse hack than mine. The old hack even has
> an XXX comment saying it should be removed, added by its author.
I agree your hack is better but it's still a hack, limited to sppp(4).
> > So IMHO if what you want is fix the EEXIST, I'd do that.
>
> I see where you are coming from. Fixing the routing table as you suggest
> would make the old hack work again and also bring other benefits.
There's no need to fix the routing table, we could something like:
- if (hisaddr == 1) {
+ if (hisaddr < 10) {
Now I think you have a good point that using a flag is better than a
magic address. But I think the ifconfig(8) interface should be simpler.
What about reusing the 'autoconf' toggle? Could we say:
# ifconfig pppoe0 inet autoconf
Instead of introducing 'dynaddr' and 'dyndest'? Would it be a problem
if somebody wants to run dhclient(8) on top of pppoe(4)?
