forked from DGNum/liminix
think
This commit is contained in:
parent
e72d78ab64
commit
98e7536e59
1 changed files with 98 additions and 0 deletions
98
THOUGHTS.txt
98
THOUGHTS.txt
|
@ -2337,4 +2337,102 @@ Here is a working shebang for write-fennel:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
#!/nix/store/5iwv3h2jjbk2vib2bpwx3g9knpb02x3y-lua-5.3.6/bin/lua -e dofile(arg[0]).run()
|
#!/nix/store/5iwv3h2jjbk2vib2bpwx3g9knpb02x3y-lua-5.3.6/bin/lua -e dofile(arg[0]).run()
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Tue Sep 12 20:47:52 BST 2023
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
We don't handle unbound or stopped states in odhcp consumers. I think
|
||||||
|
probably we should do this in odhcp-script by deleting the outputs,
|
||||||
|
rather than making each consumer do it.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
... turns out that odhcp6c itself unsets ADDRESSES and PREFIXES before
|
||||||
|
calling the script with "unbound", so maybe we don't need to do
|
||||||
|
anything special.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Wed Sep 13 17:55:33 BST 2023
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
@400000000000001f2723b3cb eth1.link.pppoe Script /nix/store/nyks8zl86dcp44k5sjcc76digrnfgm17-ip-up finished (pid 403), status = 0x0
|
||||||
|
@400000000000001f27b2db3b eth1.link.pppoe Script /nix/store/ds0lc4qd1zfiyxsva87rpplyr21awjh1-ip6-up finished (pid 404), status = 0x1
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
@400000000000001f30a7c5c5 /nix/store/v9ijgyywizqbbd9y73r2wifkxc0d1jjm-route-default-1a22c69d0e1f-up: line 4: input: not found
|
||||||
|
@400000000000001f31abf9b5 ip: command line is not complete, try "help"
|
||||||
|
@400000000000001f31ca1395 s6-rc: warning: unable to start service route-default-1a22c69d0e1f: command exited 1
|
||||||
|
@400000000000001f31f236b4 s6-rc: info: service route-default-d2586cf00da0 successfully started
|
||||||
|
@
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Wed Sep 13 18:05:38 BST 2023
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
TODO
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- service for dhcp6 client
|
||||||
|
- move acquire-{wan,lan} scripts out of examples/
|
||||||
|
- service for resolvconf
|
||||||
|
- nftables syntax error
|
||||||
|
- tidy up the dependency handling in serviceDefn build
|
||||||
|
(interface is fine, implementation is a bit brutal)
|
||||||
|
- docs
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
considerations:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
1) in some ways, we should be able to specify acquire-{wan,lan} as if
|
||||||
|
they were just additional addresses on the respective
|
||||||
|
interfaces. However, they're longruns so the implementation of
|
||||||
|
"address" doesn't really fit.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
2) should they be bundled into a dhcp client service? I think the
|
||||||
|
answer is "no" because which of the dhcp config we want to
|
||||||
|
honour locally (and how) is policy not mechainmsm
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
svc.dhcp6c.client.build { interface = wan; };
|
||||||
|
svc.dhcp6c.address.build {
|
||||||
|
inherit client;
|
||||||
|
interface = lan;
|
||||||
|
};
|
||||||
|
svc.dhcp6c.address.build {
|
||||||
|
inherit client;
|
||||||
|
interface = wan;
|
||||||
|
};
|
||||||
|
svc.dhcp6c.prefix.build {
|
||||||
|
inherit client;
|
||||||
|
interface = lan;
|
||||||
|
index = 1; # default to first interface
|
||||||
|
};
|
||||||
|
svc.dhcp6c.prefix.build {
|
||||||
|
inherit client;
|
||||||
|
interface = vpn;
|
||||||
|
index = 2;
|
||||||
|
};
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Fri Sep 15 12:04:25 BST 2023
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Qemu worked example provides dhcp and ssh service
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Hardware worked example needs to be plugged into same lan as build
|
||||||
|
machine if we are going to tftp the image onto it - so it might be
|
||||||
|
awkward if we run dhcp on it
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The device I have lying around is the A
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
How do we do the actual flash step? Assuming the device is running
|
||||||
|
stock firmware, from a laptop we can wifi to it and use the web ui to
|
||||||
|
upgrade
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
we can't build the hellonet config because it requires tftp
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
plug in mt300a
|
||||||
|
put stock firmware on it
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Sun Sep 17 00:08:03 BST 2023
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
I don't think the user manual needs a full justification of why we
|
||||||
|
have the module/service split. Maybe we should have "decision records"
|
||||||
|
in the git tree instead
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Sun Sep 17 16:44:31 BST 2023
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Can we figure out which bits of the old doc are missing from the new
|
||||||
|
one and just transplant those? Then we can merge it sooner
|
||||||
|
instead of blocking on writig all the new stuff
|
||||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in a new issue