From owner-freebsd-stable Fri Feb 15 12:38:54 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from damnhippie.dyndns.org (12-253-177-2.client.attbi.com [12.253.177.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF59037B402 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 12:38:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from [172.22.42.2] (peace.hippie.lan [172.22.42.2]) by damnhippie.dyndns.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g1FKciv56019 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 13:38:44 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from freebsd@damnhippie.dyndns.org) User-Agent: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 5.01 (1630) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 13:38:44 -0700 Subject: Re: Suggestion on natd rc scripts From: Ian To: freebsd-stable Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <002f01c1b65d$13834bb0$1200a8c0@gsicomp.on.ca> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG >> I ran into exactly this same situation a couple weeks ago, and was outraged >> by the fact that 1) fxp0 was hard-coded in a defaults file, and 2) the rc >> files won't start natd without the interface being specified on the command >> line. >> > Well, *something* needs to be hard-coded in the defaults file. What do you > suggest? I suggest that natd_interface="" be in the defaults. If you add natd_enable=yes to your rc.conf, it is then your responsibility to set natd_flags and/or natd_interface to something that will work for you. In rc.network, if natd_enable is Yes, then it validates that either (or both) of natd_flags and natd_interface have non-empty values. If so, it starts natd. If natd_enable is Yes and both flags and interface are empty, it whines and doesn't start natd. The only downside I can see to this change is that people who currently have Intel Etherexpress NICs and have just natd_enable=yes in their rc.conf would have to add natd_interface=fxp0 as part of their next upgrade. Everyone else is already going to have a natd_interface= in their rc.conf and nothing would need to change. And those of us who want to specify the interface in our natd.conf files will have the option of doing so and will be able to remove the natd_interface= from our rc.conf. Who decided that Intel NICs should get primacy over other brands in this case anyway? Were payoffs involved? Was pressure brought to bear? Do we need the ISU to investigate? :-) -- Ian To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message