Dear Marco,
Ok, so do you understand why would I like to have default.rp_filter set to
1 before bringing up any interfaces? Anyway, what is the expected
behaviour? Because, with the current setup it produces random results.
After one bootup my eth0 had rp_filter=0, and eth1 had rp_filter=1, after
the other boot, all had rp_filter=1. I dont think this is normal
operation. Either all should have rp_filter set to 1 (default.rp_filter
set to 1 before ifup), or all should have rp_filter set to 0
(default.rp_filter set to 1 after ifup).
What is your opinion?
Regards,
Kojedzinszky Richard
TvNetWork Nyrt.
E-mail: krichy (at) tvnetwork [dot] hu
PGP: 0x54B2BF0C8F59B1B7
Fingerprint = F6D4 3FFE AF03 CACF 0DCB 46A1 54B2 BF0C 8F59 B1B7
On Sat, 5 Mar 2011, Marco d'Itri wrote:
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2011 17:52:37 +0100
From: Marco d'Itri <m...@linux.it>
To: Richard Kojedzinszky <kri...@tvnetwork.hu>
Cc: 616...@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#616479: netbase: /etc/init.d/networking should depend on
procps
On Mar 05, Richard Kojedzinszky <kri...@tvnetwork.hu> wrote:
Please understand, that rp_filter to take effect on an interface,
net.ipv4.conf.<iface>.rp_filter _AND_ net.ipv4.conf.all.rp_filter must be
set to 1.
But default should set the default for new interfaces. Maybe. This is
usually a bit unclear.
Anyway, netbase cannot help you. If you want to set a sysctl for an
interface which does not exist in early boot do it with an up or pre-up
directive in /etc/network/interfaces.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
