From: Sven Conrad (SvenConrad@gmx.de)
Date: Mon Aug 28 2000 - 15:07:07 CEST
Michele Andreoli wrote:
> A single network.fun is more elegant, but separated setup are more
> functional: you can bring up/down any single interface and also
> manage a multi-interface environment. A big advantage, because it
> open the possibility to develope also a routing.fun, and so on.
>
> The actual setup/network should be renamed as setup/eth and "netconfig"
> must manage all common code between various methods/interfaces.
>
> What you think?
I find it confusing, if all Interfaces are defined in one file. Think
about
one point: eth get a IP out of one for the subnet, it is connected to,
plip
gets a point-to-point pair ppp most the time a automatic IP. It could be
very confusing for newbys to get mixed questions. On the other side, I
played
around at some time with eth, plip and ppp (allso direct link) on a
system.
This means 3 network devices running at one time.
With separate setups, there is no problem in doing so. How would you do
this,
if it is one file? One the other side, if this one script is avanced
enough,
may be the setup for multi eth is solved as sideeffect. Allso, if there
is
more than one network device, the routing becomes more important. May
be, this
is a good centralized think. Any device could be set as direct or
masquraded
and stuff like this. That would be allso a solution for my general
problem
on plip, where I setup allso masqurading, which will interfere with ppp
masqurading.
/sven
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: mulinux-unsubscribe@sunsite.auc.dk
For additional commands, e-mail: mulinux-help@sunsite.auc.dk
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Sat Feb 08 2003 - 15:27:15 CET