Re: [Condor-users] Default setting of NETWORK_INTERFACE

[Michael Thomas <thomas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Derek,

Derek Wright wrote:
> On May 19, 2006, at 11:39 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
> 
> 
>>Is there an easy way to tell condor 6.7.18 to prefer private  
>>addresses instead of public addresses?  Or is there some wildcard  
>>that we can set to avoid having to set NETWORK_INTERFACE for each  
>>machine individually?
> 
> 
> nope, sorry.
> 
> 
>>something like:
>>
>>NETWORK_INTERFACE=192.168.0.*
>>NETWORK_INTERFACE=192.168.0.0/24
> 
> 
> these two would be fairly easy to add, would be almost entirely  
> portable, and a definite usability win.  i'm not sure the netmask  
> notation would buy you much over a simple string wildcard, to be honest.

Some network types like to use the netmask notation instead of wildcards
because it's more flexible when you want to subdivide a class-C into
multiple subnets, like 192.168.0.0/28.  Personally, the former would
suit me just fine.

>>NETWORK_INTERFACE=eth0
> 
> 
> this turns out to be a nightmare for portability. :(  there's no  
> single way to find out what network interfaces are on a machine and  
> what their IP addresses are.  every OS does this differently.  they  
> don't all even use "eth0", as their interface naming convention.  so,  
> we'd have to write (and continue to port/maintain) a whole library of  
> platform-specific code to find this info, attempt to standardize on  
> an interface naming scheme, etc, etc.  not going to happen. ;)
> 
> the wildcard is an interesting approach that we'll consider.  thanks  
> for the suggestion.

I have no preference of one over the other.  If one of them is easier to
implement then I certainly won't complain about it.  :)

--Mike

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature