H Leo,

I vote for "One big table" but with a few change requests.

- please change the order of the nics to red, green, orange, blue

- please change the way you implement the STP-line. I would discard the STP-field and change "enable" to "enable STP" and maybe the border between the options and the assignment a bit bigger. At the moment you get the impression that you can switch the zone on and off and not only STP.

-

Daniel

Hi Michael,

I can start working on this next week, so I suggest we keep voting until 13.12.! Votes so far:
- One big table: II
- Two tables: II

Regards
Leo

Am 01.12.2020 um 17:27 schrieb Michael Tremer:

Hello Leo, Thanks for putting all this leg work in. I would as well vote for option two: one big table. I do not expect that we will add too much more, and splitting this into two tables pulls two things that belong together apart. Until when do we want to keep the voting open? Best, -Michael

On 28 Nov 2020, at 13:24, Adolf Belka <ahb.ipfire@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Leo, I prefer the one big table. There are just a couple of extra rows and boxes in each of the zone headings, so I don't think it is overly busy and easier to scan if you are making changes. At the end of the day, if the two table option was preferred by more people I could also live with that. My 2p worth. Regards, Adolf. On 28/11/2020 13:06, Leo Hofmann wrote:

Hi, once again, thanks for your feedback! I spent some time and created two more detailed UI drafts. I hope that I have incorporated all your ideas: 1: Two tables, zone options on the top, NIC assign matrix (without any unrelated options) on the bottom 2: One big table, STP options inside NIC selection Your thoughts? Regards Leo Am 27.11.2020 um 11:59 schrieb Michael Tremer:

Hello,

On 27 Nov 2020, at 08:34, Jonatan Schlag <jonatan.schlag@ipfire.org> wrote: Hi, Sorry for jumping late into this conversation, time is rare in these days .... I will try to bring in my thoughts, but maybe they are not well structured.

Am 26.11.2020 um 15:47 schrieb Daniel Weismüller <daniel.weismueller@ipfire.org>: Hi, there is one thing that we didn't talked about... STP and priority must only be activatable if the zone is in bridge mode otherwise it must be grayed out.

Shouldn’t we just not display these fields, if they do not matter?

- Daniel

Am 25.11.20 um 21:57 schrieb Michael Tremer: Hello,

On 25 Nov 2020, at 17:00, Leo Hofmann <hofmann@leo-andres.de> wrote:

Hi Daniel, thank you very much for the draft & the explanation! Do you happen to know if there are any other zone-related options that might be added in the future? If this is a possibility, I think we should add a second table. So we don't clutter the NIC assignment with unrelated options.

Did I mention that it is very nice, when you wrote what I think so I don’t have to write it again 😉. +1 For a second structure

Good question. On one hand it is good to have things that go together in one place. On the other hand, this whole page is becoming longer and longer and that simply makes it complicated.

Definitely to complicated. Already right now.

The only thing I can think of is MTU. We currently have no UI to set that, but it has never been asked for. We set it automatically on some of the cloud providers, but that is it.

I took up your and Michael's suggestions and created a quick HTML demo.

Looks good :)

Here I don’t think so, because more zones (4) will make it impossible to display this on very small displays. Why not creating a table for every zone and putting them among each other.

I think this definitely has some upsides, but it also has some downsides: It would be good to have more space for each zone and put all settings for one zone together. The biggest problem that I see is that it is no longer obvious which ports are now available and configured to other zones and that makes this part a little bit more complicated. People would have to scroll up and down or hit Save and see an error message that tells you that you did something wrong. What do we think about this? It is a bit of extra work - and should be considered a step two after STP has been implemented - but I do not think that someone will spend a week on implementing this.

This new table could be placed below the NIC assignment table. What do you think?

Call the checkboxes “Enable”, because that is what they do. I would also suggest to have the labels (e.g. “Priority”) on the left so that it is only wasting space once. With plenty of zones the table just becomes unnecessarily wide then.

@Michael: I would like to base this new feature on my recently patched zoneconf.cgi. Is this somehow a bad idea?

Well, good question. I have no idea why I didn’t merge it yet. I didn’t realise it was ready. I will check if there is enough testing feedback already. Best, -Michael

Regards Leo Am 23.11.2020 um 16:13 schrieb Daniel Weismüller:

Hi Leo, that pleases me to hear and I gladly accept your offer. ;-) I quickly made a draft and attached it. As I said it is only a draft so there is still plenty of room for improvement. The checkbox switches the variable named ${ZONE}_STP to 0 or 1. The input field fills the variable named ${ZONE}_STP_PRIORITY. Here must a number between 1 and 65535 inserted. - Daniel Am 21.11.20 um 17:39 schrieb Leo Hofmann:

Hi Daniel, a few days ago I finally submitted my patches for zoneconf.cgi and I would now have time to work on this as well.

Thank you for submitting these patches. It is enjoyable to read good code.

(By the way, I almost forgot, thanks @Michael for reviewing my patches!) If you want me to take this on, it would be very helpful if you could summarize how this should work. For example, which config parameters need to be modified. Perhaps you could even paint a simple GUI mock-up like you did last time? Regards, Leo Am 20.11.2020 um 19:31 schrieb Daniel Weismüller:

OK. ;-) The first step will be the introduction of the possibility to enable STP. The next step will be the implementation in the webif. I hope I find someone who can do that. - Daniel Am 20.11.2020 um 16:18 schrieb Kienker, Fred:

I'm with Michael on this one. If it deserves to be in IPFire, it deserves to be on the web interface. Don't created exceptions which are only available from a command line. Best regards, Fred -----Original Message----- From: Michael Tremer <michael.tremer@ipfire.org> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2020 5:55 AM To: Daniel Weismüller <daniel.weismueller@ipfire.org> Cc: development@lists.ipfire.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Core 152: the script "network-hotplug-bridges" now reads the variable ${ZONE}_STP from /var/ipfire/ethernet/settings so that STP can be turned on and off for each bridge Hi,

On 20 Nov 2020, at 06:58, Daniel Weismüller

<daniel.weismueller@ipfire.org> wrote:

Hello, In my opinion it is sufficient to be able to set these parameters via

command line. Why is that? IPFire is a distribution that is supposed to be managed entirely by the web user interface.

And here I was wondering a lot. A lot of options are only available via command line. The setup command is entirely based on the command line. So where do we draw a border what should be available from the webinterface? These and some other questions I have belonging to the webinterface, are some how fundamental, so that I like to discuss these in the telco ...

The setup is a CLI tool because the web UI is not set up yet, when it is being launched. We must have everything that is possible on the web UI and only what is necessary on the CLI.

Best Jonatan

It should only be made sure that the settings are persitend and not

overwritten by a reboot or the webif. They wont be as they are in /var/ipfire/ethernet/settings. Best, -Michael

- Daniel Am 19.11.2020 um 15:56 schrieb Michael Tremer:

Hello Daniel, This patch looks good to me. I had assumed that we automatically enabled STP on all bridges, but

apparently we do not.

How do we process with this? I suppose it is not the most user-friendly way to ask the user to

edit the configuration file. This either must be documented somewhere or the zoneconfig.cgi script needs to be extended to allow enabling STP.

Does anyone want to be able to change any STP parameters like

priority or cost of the ports?

Best, -Michael

On 19 Nov 2020, at 13:18, Daniel Weismüller

<daniel.weismueller@ipfire.org> wrote:

Signed-off-by: Daniel Weismüller <daniel.weismueller@ipfire.org> --- config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges

b/config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges

index 33d6d65ba..7431377bb 100644 --- a/config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges +++ b/config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges @@ -81,6 +81,7 @@ MODE="$(get_value "${ZONE}_MODE")" # The name of the virtual bridge BRIDGE="$(get_value "${ZONE}_DEV")" +STP="$(get_value "${ZONE}_STP")" case "${MODE}" in bridge) @@ -89,7 +90,8 @@ case "${MODE}" in # We need to create the bridge if it doesn't exist, yet if [ ! -d "/sys/class/net/${BRIDGE}" ]; then - ip link add "${BRIDGE}" address "${ADDRESS}" type

bridge

+ ip link add "${BRIDGE}" address "${ADDRESS}" type

bridge \

+ $([ "${STP}" = "on" ] && echo "stp_state 1") #ip link set "${BRIDGE}" up fi -- 2.28.0

<zoneconf-stp.png>