Re: RFC: new network config (was: Re: network configuration)
On Sun, Feb 14, 1999 at 10:18:48PM +0900, Richard G. Roberto wrote:
> Again, your expert advice is a real eye opener. Did you take
> condescension lessons or something?
it's called 'responding in kind'. i reply to rudeness with the same.
> > > I just think taking a hard line either way is going to alienate
> > > some of us (myself included).
>
> > my "hard line" is 'whatever the system admin puts in the config
> > files is correct even if it's brain-damaged and just plain wrong' -
> > i.e. i don't presume to know better than the local admin, my program
> > does exactly what it is told to do and nothing more.
>
> Done deal then -- I obviously misinterpreted it when you said it
> wouldn't deal with manually configured interfaces at all,
like i suggested in my last message, you were arguing against something
you hadn't even bothered to research....if you had done any research
at all (e.g. read the rest of the thread) you would have realised that
there was nothing to argue about.
> > what you are suggesting is to presume that all of a sysadmin's
> > manual experimentation is known and good and deserves to be saved
> > into the config files automagically.
>
> Hmmm, this sounds interesting too. Are there plans to have a script
> capture the current live config and generate config files for it?
i have no plans to write such a thing. in general, i think that things
like this cause far more trouble than they are worth.
it is possible to do it for simple ip alias interface definitions (which
is only a tiny part of what my virtual-services package does), but that
is because creating the interfaces is so trivial that it doesn't need
anything like this.
craig
--
craig sanders
Reply to: