On Fri, 2012-08-31 at 09:56 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le jeudi 30 août 2012 à 22:19 +0200, Wouter Verhelst a écrit : > > On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 10:44:11AM +0200, Andrew Shadura wrote: > > > How do you suppose it's possible to undo arbitrary network > > > configuration done by arbitrary set of tools when there's no central > > > place to hold such information (and can't possibly be)? > > > > Actually, the kernel holds that information. Any tool can just query the > > kernel for information, and decide what to do with what's returned. > > Yes it does, but does it hold it in a meaningful, structured way? In > complex setups, for example, there might be no certain way to say which > interface is related to which route. I wish you would give an example. > Or to tell which low-level > interface another interface depends on (think tunnels managed by > userland tools). You're thinking about packet forwarding in userland? > Actually if there was at least a *standard*, low-level (or in-kernel) > tool to return structured information about the current network > configuration, maybe high-level network tools (such as ifupdown and NM) > could be redesigned in a completely different, much more compatible, > way. The kernel API is called rtnetlink (or NETLINK_ROUTE) and NM already uses it. Not all device relationships are properly represented through it yet, but people are working on it. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Theory and practice are closer in theory than in practice. - John Levine, moderator of comp.compilers
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part