lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Dec]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [RFC] ip / ifconfig redesign
    Date
    Pekka Savola wrote:
    > Al Boldi wrote:
    > > Consider this new approach for better address management:
    > > 1. Allow the definition of an address pool
    > > 2. Relate links to addresses
    > > 3. Implement to make things backward-compatible.
    > >
    > > The obvious benefit here, would be the transparent ability for apps to
    > > bind to addresses, regardless of the link existence.
    > >
    > That's called 'the loopback address', right? :)

    Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
    > # echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_nonlocal_bind
    >
    > and/or bind to address 0 (aka 0.0.0.0) instead of a given IP address.

    Ben Greear wrote:
    > > Another benefit includes the ability to scale the link level
    > > transparently, regardless of the application bind state.
    >
    > Can you do this with the current code by using scripts/whatever to move
    > virtual IPs around the interfaces?

    Maybe, but wouldn't that be a workaround?

    linux-os \(Dick Johnson\) wrote:
    > It really doesn't have anything to do with the kernel.

    Maybe I shouldn't have cc'd kernel.

    Marc Singer wrote:
    > It might make sense to allow the address to exist without a link in
    > order to allow a local port listener to continue to accept connections
    > even though the network moved to another link, e.g. wireless to
    > wired. Then again, perhaps, this shouldn't matter.
    >
    > What does Mr. Boldi propose?

    Jesper Juhl wrote:
    > I'm only guessing since I'm not entirely sure what Mr. Boldi means,
    > but my guess is that he's proposing that an app can bind to an IP
    > address without that address being assigned to any currently available
    > interface and then later if that IP does get assigned to an interface
    > the app will start recieving traffic then. Also possibly allowing the
    > address to be removed from one interface and then later assigned to
    > another one without apps noticing.
    > I don't know /if/ that is what was meant, but that's how I read it.

    Yes! And much more...

    One reason why linux is great is because it's flexible. But flexibility
    sometimes leads you to fulfill requirements in a workaround fashion. Things
    get worse when you start building on these workarounds.

    GNU/OpenSource is prone to such a development.

    What I propose is to stop and think always; identify the problem and provide
    for a _scalable_ solution. Procrastinating using workarounds may make your
    development cycle seem faster, when in fact you are inhibiting it.

    Here specifically, ip/ifconfig is implemented upside-down requiring a
    link/dev to exist for an address to be defined, in effect containing layer 3
    inside layer 2, when an address should be allowed to be defined w/o a
    link/dev much like an app is allowed to be defined w/o an address.

    Thanks for all your comments!

    --
    Al

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-12-03 14:52    [W:0.028 / U:2.820 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site