Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-10-14 at 00:21, Robert Collins wrote:
>> I think there is basically a general class of network event to represent
>> these, and if ifupdown is taught it, and then dhcp, ppp, are
>> hooked into it, the result would be fanastic. That class is lin
Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Oct 11, Joerg Sommer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> why ppp provides its own mechanism of telling programs when the
>> interface is coming up or down? Many programs register for the ppp
>> mechanism, but not for the network mechanism. Where is the differen
On Oct 14, Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am not sure I understand what you mean here. Are you saying that
> there is no point in ifupdown providing the "up" command facility if the
> "up" commands don't get run on reconnect as well as initial connect?
Yes. It would be *completely* u
On Wed, 2004-10-13 at 23:14, Richard A Nelson wrote:
> I don't see how we can get this kind of support without ppp and dhcp
> support... The two would be very similiar (the potential to get the
> same address, or a new one).
I am not sure I understand what you mean here. Are you saying that
ther
On Thu, 2004-10-14 at 00:21, Robert Collins wrote:
> I think there is basically a general class of network event to represent
> these, and if ifupdown is taught it, and then dhcp, ppp, are
> hooked into it, the result would be fanastic. That class is link events,
> as opposed to interface ones. I.
On Wed, 2004-10-13 at 22:10 +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 09:50:04 +0200, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
> wrote:
> > I think Robert thought about if the scripts are rerun if pppd loses
> > connection and reconnects - typically with a different IP.
>
>
> FYI: The experime
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, Thomas Hood wrote:
> FYI: The experimental ifupdown does not currently rerun "up" scripts if
> pppd reconnects.
Is not the same true for DHCP ?
> I can see why, in the case of PPP interfaces, that might be desired. I am
> not sure that we should implement it, though. It wo
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 09:50:04 +0200, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
wrote:
> I think Robert thought about if the scripts are rerun if pppd loses
> connection and reconnects - typically with a different IP.
FYI: The experimental ifupdown does not currently rerun "up" scripts if
pppd reconnec
On Wednesday 13 October 2004 08.30, Thomas Hood wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-10-12 at 23:28, Robert Collins wrote:
> > Does it hook into ppp to handle persistent ppp connections? (i.e.
> > adsl).
>
> I am not sure what you mean.
>
> The new ifupdown uses pppd's updetach option. Run with this option,
> pp
On Tue, 2004-10-12 at 23:28, Robert Collins wrote:
> Does it hook into ppp to handle persistent ppp connections? (i.e. adsl).
I am not sure what you mean.
The new ifupdown uses pppd's updetach option. Run with this option,
pppd only exits after it has made a connection. Since ifup runs "up"
co
On Tue, 2004-10-12 at 20:48 +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 14:30:14 +0200, Robert Collins wrote:
> > Thats quite different - I'd love for this to be consolidated and
> > addressed though.
>
>
> The experimental version of ifupdown addresses this to some extent. The
> if-up.d scr
On Oct 11, Joerg Sommer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> why ppp provides its own mechanism of telling programs when the
> interface is coming up or down? Many programs register for the ppp
> mechanism, but not for the network mechanism. Where is the difference
The reason there continues to be a need
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 14:30:14 +0200, Robert Collins wrote:
> Thats quite different - I'd love for this to be consolidated and
> addressed though.
The experimental version of ifupdown addresses this to some extent. The
if-up.d scripts are run only after the PPP interface is created.
--
Thomas Ho
On Oct 12, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree with Jörg, though, that this should be unified for sarge+1.
I doubt this is even possible, the semantics are very different for any
non-trivial scenario (and for many trivial ones too).
> Jörg: file a wishlist bu
On Tue, 2004-10-12 at 13:59 +0200, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
wrote:
> On Monday 11 October 2004 20.24, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > On Oct 11, Joerg Sommer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > why ppp provides its own mechanism of telling programs when the
> > > interface is coming up or down? Ma
On Monday 11 October 2004 20.24, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Oct 11, Joerg Sommer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > why ppp provides its own mechanism of telling programs when the
> > interface is coming up or down? Many programs register for the ppp
> > mechanism, but not for the network mechanism. Wher
On Oct 11, Joerg Sommer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> why ppp provides its own mechanism of telling programs when the interface
> is coming up or down? Many programs register for the ppp mechanism, but
> not for the network mechanism. Where is the difference and why both isn't
Historical reasons? A
Hi,
why ppp provides its own mechanism of telling programs when the interface
is coming up or down? Many programs register for the ppp mechanism, but
not for the network mechanism. Where is the difference and why both isn't
the same?
Bye, Joerg.
--
Real programmers don't comment their code. It
18 matches
Mail list logo
