Re: Interface start-up ordering sequence, multiple passes?

[Paul Jakma <paul dishone st>]

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Pekka Savola wrote:

> On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Paul Jakma wrote:

> > generic DEPENDSON parameter to specify dependencies. File to define 
> > interface order is probably by far easiest to implement,
> 
> This is a good idea, but with more consideration, it may not be
> entirely trivial in the case that DEPENDSON would have to list more
> than one interface, or something generic like, "the interface the
> default route points to".

yeah, thats what i reckon - trying to solve it by listing 
dependencies could become quite involved i think.

> The more I think of this, the more interesting this
> DEPENDSON="<one-interface>"|"default" sounds; the latter would be a
> general term to look up a default route (or something like that).

hmm.. but it might not be dependent on the default route - it might 
be dependent on a specific route. (ie default goes via the ISP. But 
your 'VPN' or other interface depends on the route for your vpn peer 
to have been installed by ospfd or somesuch). very tricky really - i 
dont think going by dependent interfaces is viable - never mind 
routes.

> The ordering may not always be so trivial, like "VPN interfaces"
> and "regular interfaces".  Eth0 could be upstream while eth1 would
> be intranet interface (and one could require the other), for
> example.

well, you could just list them explicitely one after the other i 
guess.

regards,
-- 
Paul Jakma	paul clubi ie	paul jakma org	Key ID: 64A2FF6A
	warning: do not ever send email to spam dishone st
Fortune:
The first time, it's a KLUDGE!
The second, a trick.
Later, it's a well-established technique!
		-- Mike Broido, Intermetrics