dracut requires router

My terminals just failed to boot because the router was (temporarily) unavailable. Seems this is on purpose?

http://dracut.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=dracut/dracut;a=commit;h=98f25e96

I don't know what the above is trying to do exactly.

Quoted 7 lines · Pádraig Brady

My terminals just failed to boot because the router was (temporarily) unavailable. Seems this is on purpose?

http://dracut.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=dracut/dracut;a=commit;h=98f25e96

I don't know what the above is trying to do exactly.

What this does ist simply try and give a possible router enough time to update its STP caches (See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanning_tree_protocol) so that subsequent mount attempts don't fail because the router isn't ready.

So yes, it is on purpose if the available IP information contains routers.

I Hope this helps

Quoted 14 lines · Seewer Philippe

Quoted 7 lines · Pádraig Brady

My terminals just failed to boot because the router was (temporarily) unavailable. Seems this is on purpose?

http://dracut.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=dracut/dracut;a=commit;h=98f25e96

I don't know what the above is trying to do exactly.

What this does ist simply try and give a possible router enough time to update its STP caches (See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanning_tree_protocol) so that subsequent mount attempts don't fail because the router isn't ready.

Quoted 3 lines

So yes, it is on purpose if the available IP information contains routers.

I Hope this helps

Thanks for the info, but.
Is it right to do this synchronously with such a long timeout?

Is it right to die if we can't contact the router?

Quoted 1 line · Pádraig Brady

Is it right to die if we can't contact the router?

Usually yes. Either because the rootserver is behind the router or if you supplied routing information it's safe to assume that later you want it to work anyway.

But yes, usually. I would have preferred to somehow a subnet check on the rootserver to decide what or if to check. But alas, not all netroot variants know the ip of their rootserver at that point.

Quoted 6 lines · Seewer Philippe

Quoted 1 line · Pádraig Brady

Is it right to die if we can't contact the router?

Usually yes. Either because the rootserver is behind the router or if you supplied routing information it's safe to assume that later you want it to work anyway.

Well in my case the router is just needed for browsing the net. All other services are provided locally.

Quoted 3 lines

But yes, usually. I would have preferred to somehow a subnet check on the rootserver to decide what or if to check. But alas, not all netroot variants know the ip of their rootserver at that point.

Right, but no need to penalize the common case. I.E. we can bypass all this if the rootserver is known, and on the same subnet.

Quoted 11 lines · Pádraig Brady

Quoted 6 lines · Seewer Philippe

Quoted 1 line · Pádraig Brady

Is it right to die if we can't contact the router?

Usually yes. Either because the rootserver is behind the router or if you supplied routing information it's safe to assume that later you want it to work anyway.

Well in my case the router is just needed for browsing the net. All other services are provided locally.

Quoted 7 lines

Quoted 3 lines

But yes, usually. I would have preferred to somehow a subnet check on the rootserver to decide what or if to check. But alas, not all netroot variants know the ip of their rootserver at that point.

Right, but no need to penalize the common case. I.E. we can bypass all this if the rootserver is known, and on the same subnet.

This seems to work.

cheers,
Pádraig.

From a1a1fac1a1cfc8bd22417923823f3d64c29dd44f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?utf-8?q?P=C3=A1draig=20Brady?=<[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 12:58:31 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] network: make gateway optional with a local root server

* modules.d/40network/netroot: Don't arping the gateway if we don't need to

---
  modules.d/40network/netroot |   25 ++++++++++++++++++-------
  1 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

modules.d/40network/netroot +11 -7

index 81a9ad3..12717b1 100755
@@ -83,22 +83,33 @@ done
  [ -e /tmp/net.$netif.override ]&&  . /tmp/net.$netif.override
  [ -e /tmp/dhclient.$netif.dhcpopts ]&&  . /tmp/dhclient.$netif.dhcpopts
 
-# Handle STP Timeout: arping default router or if not available the
-# root server. Note: This assumes that if no router is present the
+# Handle STP Timeout: arping the default router if root server is
+# unknown or not local, or if not available the root server.
+# Note: This assumes that if no router is present the
  # root server is on the same subnet.
  #
  # TODO There's some netroot variants that don't (yet) have their
  # server-ip netroot
-[ -n "$new_routers" ]&&  dest=${new_routers%%,*}
-[ -n "$gw" ]&&  dest=$gw
-if [ -z "$dest" ] ; then
+[ "$new_routers" ]&&  gw_ip=${new_routers%%,*}
+[ "$gw" ]&&  gw_ip=$gw
+if [ "$netroot" ]; then
      dummy=${netroot#*:}
      dummy=${dummy%%:*}
      case "$dummy" in
-        [0-9]*\.[0-9]*\.[0-9]*\.[0-9]*) dest=$dummy;;
+        [0-9]*\.[0-9]*\.[0-9]*\.[0-9]*) netroot_ip=$dummy;;
      esac
  fi
-if [ -n "$dest" ]&&  ! arping -q -f -w 60 -I $netif $dest ; then
+dest="$gw_ip"
+if [ "$netroot_ip" ]; then
+    if [ -z "$dest" ]; then
+         # no gateway so check root server

please use [ -n "$var" ]

Quoted 3 lines · Harald Hoyer

please use [ -n "$var" ]

Done, and added a couple of comments.

cheers,
Pádraig.

From 3030d23e31f3975c0c44207b0faae0792d5cc9b0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?utf-8?q?P=C3=A1draig=20Brady?=<[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 12:58:31 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] network: don't die if gateway is down and root server is local

* modules.d/40network/netroot: Don't arping the gateway if we don't need to