[PATCH] Core 152: the script "network-hotplug-bridges" now reads the variable ${ZONE}_STP from /var/ipfire/ethernet/settings so that STP can be turned on and off for each bridge
Signed-off-by: Daniel Weismüller daniel.weismueller@ipfire.org --- config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges b/config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges index 33d6d65ba..7431377bb 100644 --- a/config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges +++ b/config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges @@ -81,6 +81,7 @@ MODE="$(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 "${BRIDGE}" up fi
Hello Daniel,
This patch looks good to me.
I had assumed that we automatically enabled STP on all bridges, but apparently we do not.
How do we process with this?
I suppose it is not the most user-friendly way to ask the user to edit the configuration file. This either must be documented somewhere or the zoneconfig.cgi script needs to be extended to allow enabling STP.
Does anyone want to be able to change any STP parameters like priority or cost of the ports?
Best, -Michael
On 19 Nov 2020, at 13:18, Daniel Weismüller daniel.weismueller@ipfire.org wrote:
Signed-off-by: Daniel Weismüller daniel.weismueller@ipfire.org
config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges b/config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges index 33d6d65ba..7431377bb 100644 --- a/config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges +++ b/config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges @@ -81,6 +81,7 @@ MODE="$(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-- 2.28.0
Hello,
In my opinion it is sufficient to be able to set these parameters via command line.
It should only be made sure that the settings are persitend and not overwritten by a reboot or the webif.
- 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 "${BRIDGE}" up-- 2.28.0
Of course I mean the additional settings. ;-)
The possibility to activate STP via webif should be given in any case.
Am 20.11.2020 um 07:58 schrieb Daniel Weismüller:
Hello,
In my opinion it is sufficient to be able to set these parameters via command line.
It should only be made sure that the settings are persitend and not overwritten by a reboot or the webif.
Daniel
Am 19.11.2020 um 15:56 schrieb Michael Tremer:
Hello Daniel,
This patch looks good to me.
I had assumed that we automatically enabled STP on all bridges, but apparently we do not.
How do we process with this?
I suppose it is not the most user-friendly way to ask the user to edit the configuration file. This either must be documented somewhere or the zoneconfig.cgi script needs to be extended to allow enabling STP.
Does anyone want to be able to change any STP parameters like priority or cost of the ports?
Best, -Michael
On 19 Nov 2020, at 13:18, Daniel Weismüller daniel.weismueller@ipfire.org wrote:
Signed-off-by: Daniel Weismüller daniel.weismueller@ipfire.org
config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges b/config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges index 33d6d65ba..7431377bb 100644 --- a/config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges +++ b/config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges @@ -81,6 +81,7 @@ MODE="$(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 "${BRIDGE}" up fi
-- 2.28.0
Hi,
On 20 Nov 2020, at 06:58, Daniel Weismüller daniel.weismueller@ipfire.org wrote:
Hello,
In my opinion it is sufficient to be able to set these parameters via command line.
Why is that? IPFire is a distribution that is supposed to be managed entirely by the web user interface.
It should only be made sure that the settings are persitend and not overwritten by a reboot or the webif.
They won’t be as they are in /var/ipfire/ethernet/settings.
Best, -Michael
Daniel
Am 19.11.2020 um 15:56 schrieb Michael Tremer:
Hello Daniel,
This patch looks good to me.
I had assumed that we automatically enabled STP on all bridges, but apparently we do not.
How do we process with this?
I suppose it is not the most user-friendly way to ask the user to edit the configuration file. This either must be documented somewhere or the zoneconfig.cgi script needs to be extended to allow enabling STP.
Does anyone want to be able to change any STP parameters like priority or cost of the ports?
Best, -Michael
On 19 Nov 2020, at 13:18, Daniel Weismüller daniel.weismueller@ipfire.org wrote:
Signed-off-by: Daniel Weismüller daniel.weismueller@ipfire.org
config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges b/config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges index 33d6d65ba..7431377bb 100644 --- a/config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges +++ b/config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges @@ -81,6 +81,7 @@ MODE="$(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-- 2.28.0
Am 20.11.2020 um 11:55 schrieb Michael Tremer:
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.
Ok I'll revise the script.
It should only be made sure that the settings are persitend and not overwritten by a reboot or the webif.
They won’t 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 "${BRIDGE}" up-- 2.28.0
This patch is fine and does not need to be changed.
I will merge it for now and you will then send a second patch at a later time that extends the web UI to configure STP.
Best, -Michael
On 20 Nov 2020, at 11:36, Daniel Weismüller daniel.weismueller@ipfire.org wrote:
Am 20.11.2020 um 11:55 schrieb Michael Tremer:
Hi,
On 20 Nov 2020, at 06:58, Daniel Weismüller daniel.weismueller@ipfire.org wrote:
Hello,
In my opinion it is sufficient to be able to set these parameters via command line.
Why is that? IPFire is a distribution that is supposed to be managed entirely by the web user interface.
Ok I'll revise the script.
It should only be made sure that the settings are persitend and not overwritten by a reboot or the webif.
They won’t be as they are in /var/ipfire/ethernet/settings.
Best, -Michael
Daniel
Am 19.11.2020 um 15:56 schrieb Michael Tremer:
Hello Daniel,
This patch looks good to me.
I had assumed that we automatically enabled STP on all bridges, but apparently we do not.
How do we process with this?
I suppose it is not the most user-friendly way to ask the user to edit the configuration file. This either must be documented somewhere or the zoneconfig.cgi script needs to be extended to allow enabling STP.
Does anyone want to be able to change any STP parameters like priority or cost of the ports?
Best, -Michael
On 19 Nov 2020, at 13:18, Daniel Weismüller daniel.weismueller@ipfire.org wrote:
Signed-off-by: Daniel Weismüller daniel.weismueller@ipfire.org
config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges b/config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges index 33d6d65ba..7431377bb 100644 --- a/config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges +++ b/config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges @@ -81,6 +81,7 @@ MODE="$(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-- 2.28.0
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 ${ZONE}_STP from /var/ipfire/ethernet/settings so that STP can be turned on and off for each bridge
Hi,
On 20 Nov 2020, at 06:58, Daniel Weismüller
daniel.weismueller@ipfire.org wrote:
Hello,
In my opinion it is sufficient to be able to set these parameters via
command line.
Why is that? IPFire is a distribution that is supposed to be managed entirely by the web user interface.
It should only be made sure that the settings are persitend and not
overwritten by a reboot or the webif.
They wont be as they are in /var/ipfire/ethernet/settings.
Best, -Michael
Daniel
Am 19.11.2020 um 15:56 schrieb Michael Tremer:
Hello Daniel,
This patch looks good to me.
I had assumed that we automatically enabled STP on all bridges, but
apparently we do not.
How do we process with this?
I suppose it is not the most user-friendly way to ask the user to
edit the configuration file. This either must be documented somewhere or the zoneconfig.cgi script needs to be extended to allow enabling STP.
Does anyone want to be able to change any STP parameters like
priority or cost of the ports?
Best, -Michael
On 19 Nov 2020, at 13:18, Daniel Weismüller
daniel.weismueller@ipfire.org wrote:
Signed-off-by: Daniel Weismüller daniel.weismueller@ipfire.org
config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges
b/config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges
index 33d6d65ba..7431377bb 100644 --- a/config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges +++ b/config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges @@ -81,6 +81,7 @@ MODE="$(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-- 2.28.0
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 ${ZONE}_STP from /var/ipfire/ethernet/settings so that STP can be turned on and off for each bridge
Hi,
On 20 Nov 2020, at 06:58, Daniel Weismüller
daniel.weismueller@ipfire.org wrote:
Hello,
In my opinion it is sufficient to be able to set these parameters via
command line.
Why is that? IPFire is a distribution that is supposed to be managed entirely by the web user interface.
It should only be made sure that the settings are persitend and not
overwritten by a reboot or the webif.
They wont be as they are in /var/ipfire/ethernet/settings.
Best, -Michael
Daniel
Am 19.11.2020 um 15:56 schrieb Michael Tremer:
Hello Daniel,
This patch looks good to me.
I had assumed that we automatically enabled STP on all bridges, but
apparently we do not.
How do we process with this?
I suppose it is not the most user-friendly way to ask the user to
edit the configuration file. This either must be documented somewhere or the zoneconfig.cgi script needs to be extended to allow enabling STP.
Does anyone want to be able to change any STP parameters like
priority or cost of the ports?
Best, -Michael
On 19 Nov 2020, at 13:18, Daniel Weismüller
daniel.weismueller@ipfire.org wrote:
Signed-off-by: Daniel Weismüller daniel.weismueller@ipfire.org
config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges
b/config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges
index 33d6d65ba..7431377bb 100644 --- a/config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges +++ b/config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges @@ -81,6 +81,7 @@ MODE="$(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}" typebridge
ip link add "${BRIDGE}" address "${ADDRESS}" typebridge \
$([ "${STP}" = "on" ] && echo "stp_state 1") #ip link set "${BRIDGE}" up-- 2.28.0
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.
(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 ${ZONE}_STP from /var/ipfire/ethernet/settings so that STP can be turned on and off for each bridge
Hi,
On 20 Nov 2020, at 06:58, Daniel Weismüller
daniel.weismueller@ipfire.org wrote:
Hello,
In my opinion it is sufficient to be able to set these parameters via
command line.
Why is that? IPFire is a distribution that is supposed to be managed entirely by the web user interface.
It should only be made sure that the settings are persitend and not
overwritten by a reboot or the webif.
They wont be as they are in /var/ipfire/ethernet/settings.
Best, -Michael
Daniel
Am 19.11.2020 um 15:56 schrieb Michael Tremer:
Hello Daniel,
This patch looks good to me.
I had assumed that we automatically enabled STP on all bridges, but
apparently we do not.
How do we process with this?
I suppose it is not the most user-friendly way to ask the user to
edit the configuration file. This either must be documented somewhere or the zoneconfig.cgi script needs to be extended to allow enabling STP.
Does anyone want to be able to change any STP parameters like
priority or cost of the ports?
Best, -Michael
On 19 Nov 2020, at 13:18, Daniel Weismüller
daniel.weismueller@ipfire.org wrote:
Signed-off-by: Daniel Weismüller daniel.weismueller@ipfire.org
config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges
b/config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges
index 33d6d65ba..7431377bb 100644 --- a/config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges +++ b/config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges @@ -81,6 +81,7 @@ MODE="$(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
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.
(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 ${ZONE}_STP from /var/ipfire/ethernet/settings so that STP can be turned on and off for each bridge
Hi,
On 20 Nov 2020, at 06:58, Daniel Weismüller
daniel.weismueller@ipfire.org wrote:
Hello,
In my opinion it is sufficient to be able to set these parameters via
command line.
Why is that? IPFire is a distribution that is supposed to be managed entirely by the web user interface.
It should only be made sure that the settings are persitend and not
overwritten by a reboot or the webif.
They wont be as they are in /var/ipfire/ethernet/settings.
Best, -Michael
Daniel
Am 19.11.2020 um 15:56 schrieb Michael Tremer:
Hello Daniel,
This patch looks good to me.
I had assumed that we automatically enabled STP on all bridges, but
apparently we do not.
How do we process with this?
I suppose it is not the most user-friendly way to ask the user to
edit the configuration file. This either must be documented somewhere or the zoneconfig.cgi script needs to be extended to allow enabling STP.
Does anyone want to be able to change any STP parameters like
priority or cost of the ports?
Best, -Michael
On 19 Nov 2020, at 13:18, Daniel Weismüller
daniel.weismueller@ipfire.org wrote:
Signed-off-by: Daniel Weismüller daniel.weismueller@ipfire.org
config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges
b/config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges
index 33d6d65ba..7431377bb 100644 --- a/config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges +++ b/config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges @@ -81,6 +81,7 @@ MODE="$(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
Hi,
On 23 Nov 2020, at 15:13, Daniel Weismüller daniel.weismueller@ipfire.org wrote:
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.
Great drawing skills.
I would propose to add a second row for the priority because you might not fit it all into one cell. The “priority” label in that box probably isn’t a good idea.
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.
I would like the default to be enabled on new systems only.
Can we make that happen?
-Michael
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.
(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 ${ZONE}_STP from /var/ipfire/ethernet/settings so that STP can be turned on and off for each bridge
Hi,
On 20 Nov 2020, at 06:58, Daniel Weismüller
daniel.weismueller@ipfire.org wrote:
Hello,
In my opinion it is sufficient to be able to set these parameters via
command line.
Why is that? IPFire is a distribution that is supposed to be managed entirely by the web user interface.
It should only be made sure that the settings are persitend and not
overwritten by a reboot or the webif.
They wont be as they are in /var/ipfire/ethernet/settings.
Best, -Michael
Daniel
Am 19.11.2020 um 15:56 schrieb Michael Tremer:
Hello Daniel,
This patch looks good to me.
I had assumed that we automatically enabled STP on all bridges, but
apparently we do not.
How do we process with this?
I suppose it is not the most user-friendly way to ask the user to
edit the configuration file. This either must be documented somewhere or the zoneconfig.cgi script needs to be extended to allow enabling STP.
Does anyone want to be able to change any STP parameters like
priority or cost of the ports?
Best, -Michael
> On 19 Nov 2020, at 13:18, Daniel Weismüller
daniel.weismueller@ipfire.org wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Weismüller daniel.weismueller@ipfire.org > --- > config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges | 4 +++- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges
b/config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges
> index 33d6d65ba..7431377bb 100644 > --- a/config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges > +++ b/config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges > @@ -81,6 +81,7 @@ MODE="$(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 >
<STP.png>
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.
I took up your and Michael's suggestions and created a quick HTML demo. This new table could be placed below the NIC assignment table. What do you think?
@Michael: I would like to base this new feature on my recently patched zoneconf.cgi. Is this somehow a bad idea?
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.
(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 ${ZONE}_STP from /var/ipfire/ethernet/settings so that STP can be turned on and off for each bridge
Hi,
On 20 Nov 2020, at 06:58, Daniel Weismüller
daniel.weismueller@ipfire.org wrote:
Hello,
In my opinion it is sufficient to be able to set these parameters via
command line.
Why is that? IPFire is a distribution that is supposed to be managed entirely by the web user interface.
It should only be made sure that the settings are persitend and not
overwritten by a reboot or the webif.
They wont be as they are in /var/ipfire/ethernet/settings.
Best, -Michael
Daniel
Am 19.11.2020 um 15:56 schrieb Michael Tremer:
Hello Daniel,
This patch looks good to me.
I had assumed that we automatically enabled STP on all bridges, but
apparently we do not.
How do we process with this?
I suppose it is not the most user-friendly way to ask the user to
edit the configuration file. This either must be documented somewhere or the zoneconfig.cgi script needs to be extended to allow enabling STP.
Does anyone want to be able to change any STP parameters like
priority or cost of the ports?
Best, -Michael
> On 19 Nov 2020, at 13:18, Daniel Weismüller
daniel.weismueller@ipfire.org wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Weismüller daniel.weismueller@ipfire.org > --- > config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges | 4 +++- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges
b/config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges
> index 33d6d65ba..7431377bb 100644 > --- a/config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges > +++ b/config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges > @@ -81,6 +81,7 @@ MODE="$(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 >
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.
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.
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 :)
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.
(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 ${ZONE}_STP from /var/ipfire/ethernet/settings so that STP can be turned on and off for each bridge
Hi,
On 20 Nov 2020, at 06:58, Daniel Weismüller
daniel.weismueller@ipfire.org wrote:
Hello,
In my opinion it is sufficient to be able to set these parameters via
command line.
Why is that? IPFire is a distribution that is supposed to be managed entirely by the web user interface.
It should only be made sure that the settings are persitend and not
overwritten by a reboot or the webif.
They wont be as they are in /var/ipfire/ethernet/settings.
Best, -Michael
Daniel
Am 19.11.2020 um 15:56 schrieb Michael Tremer: > Hello Daniel, > > This patch looks good to me. > > I had assumed that we automatically enabled STP on all bridges, but
apparently we do not.
> How do we process with this? > > I suppose it is not the most user-friendly way to ask the user to
edit the configuration file. This either must be documented somewhere or the zoneconfig.cgi script needs to be extended to allow enabling STP.
> Does anyone want to be able to change any STP parameters like
priority or cost of the ports?
> Best, > -Michael > >> On 19 Nov 2020, at 13:18, Daniel Weismüller
daniel.weismueller@ipfire.org wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Weismüller daniel.weismueller@ipfire.org >> --- >> config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges | 4 +++- >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges
b/config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges
>> index 33d6d65ba..7431377bb 100644 >> --- a/config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges >> +++ b/config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges >> @@ -81,6 +81,7 @@ MODE="$(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>
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.
-
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.
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.
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 :)
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.
(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 ${ZONE}_STP from /var/ipfire/ethernet/settings so that STP can be turned on and off for each bridge
Hi,
> On 20 Nov 2020, at 06:58, Daniel Weismüller daniel.weismueller@ipfire.org wrote: > Hello, > > In my opinion it is sufficient to be able to set these parameters via command line.
Why is that? IPFire is a distribution that is supposed to be managed entirely by the web user interface.
> It should only be made sure that the settings are persitend and not overwritten by a reboot or the webif.
They wont be as they are in /var/ipfire/ethernet/settings.
Best, -Michael
> - > Daniel > > Am 19.11.2020 um 15:56 schrieb Michael Tremer: >> Hello Daniel, >> >> This patch looks good to me. >> >> I had assumed that we automatically enabled STP on all bridges, but apparently we do not. >> How do we process with this? >> >> I suppose it is not the most user-friendly way to ask the user to edit the configuration file. This either must be documented somewhere or the zoneconfig.cgi script needs to be extended to allow enabling STP. >> Does anyone want to be able to change any STP parameters like priority or cost of the ports? >> Best, >> -Michael >> >>> On 19 Nov 2020, at 13:18, Daniel Weismüller daniel.weismueller@ipfire.org wrote: >>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Weismüller daniel.weismueller@ipfire.org >>> --- >>> config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges | 4 +++- >>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges b/config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges >>> index 33d6d65ba..7431377bb 100644 >>> --- a/config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges >>> +++ b/config/udev/network-hotplug-bridges >>> @@ -81,6 +81,7 @@ MODE="$(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>
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.
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 ...
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>
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>
Hi All,
On 27/11/2020 11:59, Michael Tremer wrote:
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?
As a user just of the native or vlan options in the zone table, I find it very good to be able to see the whole table in one go, with all 4 zones. When I look at the current situation, I have all four zones present on my system and can see them in one go (desktop system). Above it was written that having 4 zones would make it impossible to display on very small displays but that would be the current status because the demo page did not have any additional columns compared to the current approach, only more rows. It just only showed 3 zones instead of 4. The priority number might be harder to read because the size of the numbers is smaller than the rest but if the priority box height is made similar to the other boxes then the font size should also be similar.
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>
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>
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>
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>
Hi,
I vote for option one: two separate tables. There will be definitely more options to come, even if we might not see them now. I also see no direct connection between STP (or any other option) and which ports are connected to a zone. Another option would be like in the network of ipfire 3.x a table per zone. (like network zone net0 status).
Greetings Jonatan
Am Dienstag, den 01.12.2020, 16:27 +0000 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 secon d 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>
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 (mailto: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 (mailto: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 (mailto: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 (mailto: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 (mailto:michael.tremer@ipfire.org) Sent: Friday, November 20, 2020 5:55 AM To: Daniel Weismüller daniel.weismueller@ipfire.org (mailto:daniel.weismueller@ipfire.org) Cc: development@lists.ipfire.org (mailto: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 (mailto: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 (mailto:daniel.weismueller@ipfire.org) wrote:
Signed-off-by: Daniel Weismüller daniel.weismueller@ipfire.org (mailto: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>
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
Am 10.12.20 um 09:24 schrieb hofmann@leo-andres.de:
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 Belkaahb.ipfire@gmail.com mailto: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 Schlagjonatan.schlag@ipfire.org mailto: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 Weismüllerdaniel.weismueller@ipfire.org mailto: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 Hofmannhofmann@leo-andres.de mailto: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 Tremermichael.tremer@ipfire.org mailto:michael.tremer@ipfire.org Sent: Friday, November 20, 2020 5:55 AM To: Daniel Weismüllerdaniel.weismueller@ipfire.org mailto:daniel.weismueller@ipfire.org Cc:development@lists.ipfire.org mailto: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 mailto: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 mailto:daniel.weismueller@ipfire.org wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Weismüllerdaniel.weismueller@ipfire.org mailto: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>
Hello,
I would say we can close this then in favour of option one.
Leo, do you need to know anything else or do you have everything to start hacking?
Best, -Michael
On 10 Dec 2020, at 12:13, Daniel Weismüller daniel.weismueller@ipfire.org wrote:
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
Am 10.12.20 um 09:24 schrieb hofmann@leo-andres.de:
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>
Hi,
agreed, I'll do option 1 then and separate the STP options a bit clearer. We can close this long topic now :)
@Michael I'm not really sure how to add new lines (e.g. "STP enable") to the language files. But I'll look into it and get back to you if I can't figure it out.
Regards Leo
Am 10.12.2020 um 14:34 schrieb Michael Tremer:
Hello,
I would say we can close this then in favour of option one.
Leo, do you need to know anything else or do you have everything to start hacking?
Best, -Michael
On 10 Dec 2020, at 12:13, Daniel Weismüller daniel.weismueller@ipfire.org wrote:
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
Am 10.12.20 um 09:24 schrieb hofmann@leo-andres.de:
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>
Hi,
On 10 Dec 2020, at 18:59, Leo Hofmann hofmann@leo-andres.de wrote:
Hi,
agreed, I'll do option 1 then and separate the STP options a bit clearer. We can close this long topic now :)
@Michael I'm not really sure how to add new lines (e.g. "STP enable") to the language files. But I'll look into it and get back to you if I can't figure it out.
You can simply edit langs/en/cgi-bin/en.pl and add new lines. English is always required because the web UI falls back to English in case there is no string in the user’s language. As you are a native German speaker, you can of course add those strings to the German version too. On you test system, copy the *.pl files to /var/ipfire/lang and run “update-language-cache” and your CGI script will be able to use the new strings.
Before committing, please run “./make.sh lang” in the build environment. This will sort the strings, add a note about missing translations to other languages and so on.
That is all.
Best, -Michael
Regards Leo
Am 10.12.2020 um 14:34 schrieb Michael Tremer:
Hello,
I would say we can close this then in favour of option one.
Leo, do you need to know anything else or do you have everything to start hacking?
Best, -Michael
On 10 Dec 2020, at 12:13, Daniel Weismüller daniel.weismueller@ipfire.org wrote:
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
Am 10.12.20 um 09:24 schrieb hofmann@leo-andres.de:
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>
Hi Michael,
thanks for the explanation! Now we can really close the topic.
Have a nice weekend Leo
11. Dezember 2020 09:51, "Michael Tremer" michael.tremer@ipfire.org schrieb:
Hi,
On 10 Dec 2020, at 18:59, Leo Hofmann hofmann@leo-andres.de wrote:
Hi,
agreed, I'll do option 1 then and separate the STP options a bit clearer. We can close this long topic now :)
@Michael I'm not really sure how to add new lines (e.g. "STP enable") to the language files. But I'll look into it and get back to you if I can't figure it out.
You can simply edit langs/en/cgi-bin/en.pl and add new lines. English is always required because the web UI falls back to English in case there is no string in the user’s language. As you are a native German speaker, you can of course add those strings to the German version too. On you test system, copy the *.pl files to /var/ipfire/lang and run “update-language-cache” and your CGI script will be able to use the new strings.
Before committing, please run “./make.sh lang” in the build environment. This will sort the strings, add a note about missing translations to other languages and so on.
That is all.
Best, -Michael
Regards Leo
Am 10.12.2020 um 14:34 schrieb Michael Tremer:
Hello,
I would say we can close this then in favour of option one.
Leo, do you need to know anything else or do you have everything to start hacking?
Best, -Michael
On 10 Dec 2020, at 12:13, Daniel Weismüller daniel.weismueller@ipfire.org wrote:
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
Am 10.12.20 um 09:24 schrieb hofmann@leo-andres.de: 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>
I would vote for option 1 as well - two separate tables. Option 2 just increases visual clutter and increases the time required to find the settings. Jonatan is correct, there will be more options added here as time goes on. Why start with so much crammed onto the table when it will likely have to be split out later anyway?
Best regards, Fred
Please note: Although we may sometimes respond to email, text and phone calls instantly at all hours of the day, our regular business hours are 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM ET, Monday thru Friday.
-----Original Message----- From: Leo Hofmann hofmann@leo-andres.de Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2020 7:06 AM To: Michael Tremer michael.tremer@ipfire.org; Jonatan Schlag jonatan.schlag@ipfire.org Cc: development 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,
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>
-
Adolf Belka -
Daniel Weismüller -
hofmann＠leo-andres.de -
Jonatan Schlag -
Kienker, Fred -
Leo Hofmann
-
Michael Tremer