2.6 Branch?

[Robert K Coffman Jr. -Info From Data Corp.]

I see some emails from March of 2008 discussing some initial work on a 2.6
branch of Leaf.  Can anyone tell me what came of that?  

I found a scenario where a 2.6 branch is necessary.  I'm trying to do
multi-ISP & traffic control on the same box, and because Shorewall requires
some 2.6 features to set HIGH_ROUTE_MARKS=Yes, I'm unable to do so.  

I'm considering chaining two Leaf Routers together, one to handle the
multiple ISPs and one for TC as a temporary solution, or moving to another
distro for this application, which has its own set of issues.

Thanks -

Bob Coffman


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
------------------------------------------------------------------------
leaf-user mailing list: leaf-user@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user
Support Request -- http://leaf-project.org/

[Gordon Bos]

Call me stupid, but I am running a cascade of two Leaf routers and I
would not even start to consider joining them. That said, I have been
running them on the same host lately (VMware). That is because I've run
out of old small sized boxes and everything I can get my hands on is
hugely oversized for the job.

When my needs were smaller I did have ISP connect en TC on the same
router, but the current cascaded setup appears to be a lot more stable.
I am really happy with that. I do not use Shorewall btw, because I am
using a self patched version of iptables with an extension that is not
supported by Shorewall.

Gordon

Robert K Coffman Jr. -Info From Data Corp. wrote:

> I see some emails from March of 2008 discussing some initial work on a 2.6
> branch of Leaf.  Can anyone tell me what came of that?  
>
> I found a scenario where a 2.6 branch is necessary.  I'm trying to do
> multi-ISP & traffic control on the same box, and because Shorewall requires
> some 2.6 features to set HIGH_ROUTE_MARKS=Yes, I'm unable to do so.  
>
> I'm considering chaining two Leaf Routers together, one to handle the
> multiple ISPs and one for TC as a temporary solution, or moving to another
> distro for this application, which has its own set of issues.
>
> Thanks -
>
> Bob Coffman
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
------------------------------------------------------------------------
leaf-user mailing list: leaf-user@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user
Support Request -- http://leaf-project.org/

[Erich Titl]

Gordon

Gordon Bos wrote:
> Call me stupid, but I am running a cascade of two Leaf routers and I
> would not even start to consider joining them. That said, I have been
> running them on the same host lately (VMware). That is because I've run
> out of old small sized boxes and everything I can get my hands on is
> hugely oversized for the job.

Out of curiosity, why would you not run this functionality on a single
Box, but be prepared to tolerate the VMWare overhead and network
abstraction, but really just out of curiosity.....

>
> When my needs were smaller I did have ISP connect en TC on the same
> router, but the current cascaded setup appears to be a lot more stable.

Can you elaborate on the stability problem? Do we have one?

cheers

Erich

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
------------------------------------------------------------------------
leaf-user mailing list: leaf-user@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user
Support Request -- http://leaf-project.org/

[Gordon Bos]

Erich Titl wrote:

> Gordon
>
> Gordon Bos wrote:
>> Call me stupid, but I am running a cascade of two Leaf routers and I
>> would not even start to consider joining them. That said, I have been
>> running them on the same host lately (VMware). That is because I've run
>> out of old small sized boxes and everything I can get my hands on is
>> hugely oversized for the job.
>
> Out of curiosity, why would you not run this functionality on a single
> Box, but be prepared to tolerate the VMWare overhead and network
> abstraction, but really just out of curiosity.....

One large reason. Except for doing ISP connect, the outer box also
functions as an ipsec/l2tp VPN router. When a remote user connects to
one of the l2tp nodes, this dynamically adds a ppp interface. I have
found no other way to handle this other than by setting the policy for
iptables to ACCEPT. That introduces a security risc for everything I may
have forgotten to catch in an earlier stage (the rules, or exceptions to
policy).

>> When my needs were smaller I did have ISP connect en TC on the same
>> router, but the current cascaded setup appears to be a lot more stable.
>
> Can you elaborate on the stability problem? Do we have one?

I used to have frequent ISP connection resets, and for some reason I
never managed to have it reconnect without human interaction on the box
itself. Now I have less resets and it also reconnects automatically. The
only issue I have now is that at some times it starts to flood the logs
with klips messages and I can only stop that by fully resetting the router.

Gordon

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
------------------------------------------------------------------------
leaf-user mailing list: leaf-user@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user
Support Request -- http://leaf-project.org/

[Erich Titl]

Gordon

Gordon Bos wrote:

>
> Erich Titl wrote:
>> Gordon
>>
>> Gordon Bos wrote:
>>> Call me stupid, but I am running a cascade of two Leaf routers and I
>>> would not even start to consider joining them. That said, I have been
>>> running them on the same host lately (VMware). That is because I've run
>>> out of old small sized boxes and everything I can get my hands on is
>>> hugely oversized for the job.
>> Out of curiosity, why would you not run this functionality on a single
>> Box, but be prepared to tolerate the VMWare overhead and network
>> abstraction, but really just out of curiosity.....
>
> One large reason. Except for doing ISP connect, the outer box also
> functions as an ipsec/l2tp VPN router. When a remote user connects to
> one of the l2tp nodes, this dynamically adds a ppp interface.

Oh, you are doing l2tp on the leaf box, I always delegate this to
winblows. But surely you only accept those requests from the ipsec
interface.

I have

> found no other way to handle this other than by setting the policy for
> iptables to ACCEPT. That introduces a security risc for everything I may
> have forgotten to catch in an earlier stage (the rules, or exceptions to
> policy).
>
>>> When my needs were smaller I did have ISP connect en TC on the same
>>> router, but the current cascaded setup appears to be a lot more stable.
>> Can you elaborate on the stability problem? Do we have one?
>
> I used to have frequent ISP connection resets, and for some reason I
> never managed to have it reconnect without human interaction on the box
> itself. Now I have less resets and it also reconnects automatically.

Have you found a reason for this?

The
> only issue I have now is that at some times it starts to flood the logs
> with klips messages and I can only stop that by fully resetting the router.

This would point to a ipsec problem, wouldn't it?

cheers

Erich

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
------------------------------------------------------------------------
leaf-user mailing list: leaf-user@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user
Support Request -- http://leaf-project.org/

[n22e113]

On 8/3/2009 08:21, Mike Noyes wrote: (from leaf.devel)
> Everyone,
> Erich Titl (etitl) promoted to project admin, and Jeff Newmiller
> (jdnewmil) demoted to project member.
>
Congrats!


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
------------------------------------------------------------------------
leaf-user mailing list: leaf-user@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user
Support Request -- http://leaf-project.org/

[Gordon Bos]

Erich,

>>>> Call me stupid, but I am running a cascade of two Leaf routers and I
>>>> would not even start to consider joining them. That said, I have been
>>>> running them on the same host lately (VMware). That is because I've run
>>>> out of old small sized boxes and everything I can get my hands on is
>>>> hugely oversized for the job.
>>> Out of curiosity, why would you not run this functionality on a single
>>> Box, but be prepared to tolerate the VMWare overhead and network
>>> abstraction, but really just out of curiosity.....
>> One large reason. Except for doing ISP connect, the outer box also
>> functions as an ipsec/l2tp VPN router. When a remote user connects to
>> one of the l2tp nodes, this dynamically adds a ppp interface.
>
> Oh, you are doing l2tp on the leaf box, I always delegate this to
> winblows. But surely you only accept those requests from the ipsec
> interface.

Naturally :)

But that leaves the problem of not being able to add non-existing
interfaces to a zone. Let alone define any rules for those interfaces.
Meaning the l2tp users are being confined to a tunnel with a dead end if
I use the default DROP policy.

As far as VMware overhead is concerned, I've used P1-66 upto P4-700 and
now it's on a Quadcore together with some more or less publicly exposed
services. I've never noticed any difference in internet speed, except
for that one time I'd set up a honeypot out of interest. ;)

> I have
>> found no other way to handle this other than by setting the policy for
>> iptables to ACCEPT. That introduces a security risc for everything I may
>> have forgotten to catch in an earlier stage (the rules, or exceptions to
>> policy).
>>
>>>> When my needs were smaller I did have ISP connect en TC on the same
>>>> router, but the current cascaded setup appears to be a lot more stable.
>>> Can you elaborate on the stability problem? Do we have one?
>> I used to have frequent ISP connection resets, and for some reason I
>> never managed to have it reconnect without human interaction on the box
>> itself. Now I have less resets and it also reconnects automatically.
>
> Have you found a reason for this?

Probably some PPTP control signal that is being blocked by netfilter.
But that's just a wild guess.

> The
>> only issue I have now is that at some times it starts to flood the logs
>> with klips messages and I can only stop that by fully resetting the router.
>
> This would point to a ipsec problem, wouldn't it?

Again I'd have to guess. Can't realy pinpoint the origin. In any case
restarting ipsec only doesn't help. It would seem the part that's
causing the problem stays resident, but I can't find it.

Gordon

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
------------------------------------------------------------------------
leaf-user mailing list: leaf-user@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user
Support Request -- http://leaf-project.org/

[Robert K Coffman Jr. -Info From Data Corp.]

Gordon,

> Call me stupid

Never!  I'm relieved to hear that this proposed solution is running at least
one other place.

I had Leaf running on VMWare for a long time, but I moved it off of it not
because of performance issues, of which there were none, but only because I
didn't want to lose internet connectivity when I took the VMWare server
down.

- Bob


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
------------------------------------------------------------------------
leaf-user mailing list: leaf-user@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user
Support Request -- http://leaf-project.org/

[Robert K Coffman Jr. -Info From Data Corp.]

> Erich Titl (etitl) promoted to project admin, and Jeff Newmiller

For those of us on the user list only, any comment on a 2.6 branch?  :)

Congratulations Erich.

- Bob


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
------------------------------------------------------------------------
leaf-user mailing list: leaf-user@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user
Support Request -- http://leaf-project.org/

[Erich Titl]

Hi

Robert K Coffman Jr. -Info From Data Corp. wrote:
>> Erich Titl (etitl) promoted to project admin, and Jeff Newmiller
>
> For those of us on the user list only, any comment on a 2.6 branch?  :)

Mhhhh.... 2.6 is a bit fatter than 2.4, it has more recent drivers and
most of the development is there.

I am not particularly hampered by the bigger footprint of 2.6 but it
might go against one of the early goals, the floppy size. Also, I
believe, maintaining two branches is quite a task for the core
developers team, which is only worth the trouble if the need really exists.

>
> Congratulations Erich.

Thanks, have not found out what the real difference is.

cheers

erich



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
------------------------------------------------------------------------
leaf-user mailing list: leaf-user@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user
Support Request -- http://leaf-project.org/

[Erich Titl]

Hi Bob

Robert K Coffman Jr. -Info From Data Corp. wrote:
> I see some emails from March of 2008 discussing some initial work on a 2.6
> branch of Leaf.  Can anyone tell me what came of that?  
>
> I found a scenario where a 2.6 branch is necessary.  I'm trying to do
> multi-ISP & traffic control on the same box, and because Shorewall requires
> some 2.6 features to set HIGH_ROUTE_MARKS=Yes, I'm unable to do so.  
>
> I'm considering chaining two Leaf Routers together, one to handle the
> multiple ISPs and one for TC as a temporary solution,

How does this solve the 2.6 requirement?

cheers

Erich



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
------------------------------------------------------------------------
leaf-user mailing list: leaf-user@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user
Support Request -- http://leaf-project.org/

[Robert K Coffman Jr. -Info From Data Corp.]

>> I'm considering chaining two Leaf Routers together, one to handle the
>> multiple ISPs and one for TC as a temporary solution,

 >How does this solve the 2.6 requirement?

Erich,

The basic issue is I can't use HIGH_ROUTE_MARKS=Yes in Shorewall.  As a
result, I can't do both Multi-ISP and Traffic Shaping on the same box.  All
I did by chaining two routers together was put the traffic shaping on one,
and multi-ISP on the other.

- Bob



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
------------------------------------------------------------------------
leaf-user mailing list: leaf-user@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user
Support Request -- http://leaf-project.org/

[Dillabough, Dave]

I'm wondering how much of an issue it is to have a system that will fit on a floppy. I would think that being able to boot off of a USB drive or a CD/USB combo would be more pertinent today given as few machines even come with a floppy as standard equipment anymore.  USB booting would eliminate the futzing around with non standard disk sizes and would be a lot more reliable and as well. I have been running some variant of LRP/LEAF since the 2.x days both at home and for various work related uses and the most common failure is mechanical i.e. drives or fans. I switched to booting off of CF cards and fanless power supplies a couple of years ago and am much closer to my goal of having a solid state  appliance that I can install and ignore. Even buying the smallest CF cards available I still need only a small fraction of the card to boot LEAF. The world has moved on from the floppy drive and I think trying to keep future versions of LEAF small enough to boot from a floppy is largely an artificial constraint now. If for some reason the use of a floppy is required then older versions of LEAF are still available.


-----Original Message-----
From: Erich Titl [mailto:erich.titl@...]
Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 6:41 AM
To: Robert K Coffman Jr. -Info From Data Corp.
Cc: leaf-user@...
Subject: Re: [leaf-user] Project Admin

Hi

Robert K Coffman Jr. -Info From Data Corp. wrote:
>> Erich Titl (etitl) promoted to project admin, and Jeff Newmiller
>
> For those of us on the user list only, any comment on a 2.6 branch?  :)

Mhhhh.... 2.6 is a bit fatter than 2.4, it has more recent drivers and
most of the development is there.

I am not particularly hampered by the bigger footprint of 2.6 but it
might go against one of the early goals, the floppy size. Also, I
believe, maintaining two branches is quite a task for the core
developers team, which is only worth the trouble if the need really exists.

>
> Congratulations Erich.

Thanks, have not found out what the real difference is.

cheers

erich



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
------------------------------------------------------------------------
leaf-user mailing list: leaf-user@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user
Support Request -- http://leaf-project.org/

[Erich Titl]

Dave

Dillabough, Dave wrote:
> I'm wondering how much of an issue it is to have a system that will fit on a floppy. I would think that being able to boot off of a USB drive or a CD/USB combo would be more pertinent today given as few machines even come with a floppy as standard equipment anymore.  USB booting would eliminate the futzing around with non standard disk sizes and would be a lot more reliable and as well. I have been running some variant of LRP/LEAF since the 2.x days both at home and for various work related uses and the most common failure is mechanical i.e. drives or fans. I switched to booting off of CF cards and fanless power supplies a couple of years ago and am much closer to my goal of having a solid state  appliance that I can install and ignore. Even buying the smallest CF cards available I still need only a small fraction of the card to boot LEAF. The world has moved on from the floppy drive and I think trying to keep future versions of LEAF small enough to boot from a floppy is l
argely an artificial constraint now. If for some reason the use of a floppy is required then older versions of LEAF are still available.

do not misinterpret me, I wrote an early HOWTO about using secure flash
disks for leaf :-( and yes, I agree, I live easily with the flash memory
world.

There are 2 main things that are different from a floppy

- size
- write protection

In my eyes, the write protection is the more important factor. There
have been multiple attempts to solve this, amongst it unloading the
device driver.

There has been a experimental 2.6 release on CVS which was hardly used
by anyone, hey, this is an open source project, get your hands dirty.

cheers

Erich



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
------------------------------------------------------------------------
leaf-user mailing list: leaf-user@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user
Support Request -- http://leaf-project.org/

[Brent Gardner]

Dillabough, Dave wrote:
> I'm wondering how much of an issue it is to have a system that will
 > fit on a floppy. I would think that being able to boot off of a USB
 > drive or a CD/USB combo would be more pertinent today given as few
 > machines even come with a floppy as standard equipment anymore.  USB
 > booting would eliminate the futzing around with non standard disk
 > sizes and would be a lot more reliable and as well. I have been
 > running some variant of LRP/LEAF since the 2.x days both at home and
 > for various work related uses and the most common failure is
 > mechanical i.e. drives or fans. I switched to booting off of CF cards
 > and fanless power supplies a couple of years ago and am much closer to
 > my goal of having a solid state  appliance that I can install and
 > ignore. Even buying the smallest CF cards available I still need only
 > a small fraction of the card to boot LEAF. The world has moved on from
 > the floppy drive and I think trying to keep future versions of LEAF
 > small enough to boot from a floppy is largely an artificial constraint
 > now. If for some reason the use of a floppy is required then older
 > versions of LEAF are still available.
>

What about the read-only aspect?  I currently boot most of my LEAF
machines from CD-ROM and read config from USB flash drive.  I've seen
precious few USB devices with a write-protect switch.

Has the state of boot-from-USB technology advanced to the point that it
is reliable across a broad range of BIOSes and USB devices?  The last
time I tried to make a bootable USB device things were still in the
state of "go download this obscure utility from HP and run it in Windows
  while standing on one foot and sprinkling the blood of a chicken on
your machine."  And after that it wouldn't boot successfully in half of
my machines.


Brent Gardner




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
------------------------------------------------------------------------
leaf-user mailing list: leaf-user@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user
Support Request -- http://leaf-project.org/

[Dillabough, Dave]

Hi Erich,

How much of an issue is having write protection? I can understand that it is better in theory but I can't think of a commercial firewall product (Cisco PIX, Linksys, DLink etc) that does not use flash and that has any sort of write protection. If having boot from R/O media is an issue you could boot from CD and save to a floppy. You could also write protect CF media with a hardware hack to the cable. With USB/CF systems I always keep a backup of the boot media. It's not as simple as a power cycle but I can always get back to a known state if I need to although this has yet to be an issue for me. So from my perspective this would seem to be a non issue for most users and that for those few where it is an issue there are ways around it with some extra work.

Obviously I don't have your perspective on the issue and I may be in the minority here and while I don't need 2.6 features yet it does seem to me that there must be quite a lot of development work that goes into squeezing a working system onto a floppy. It would be a shame if this is being done to no purpose.

Does anyone on the list boot a system from floppy disk or save config files to floppy disk?  


I will take a look at the 2.6 CVS.


Dave


-----Original Message-----
From: Erich Titl [mailto:erich.titl@...]
Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 2:40 PM
To: Dillabough, Dave
Cc: leaf-user@...
Subject: Re: [leaf-user] Project Admin

Dave

Dillabough, Dave wrote:
> I'm wondering how much of an issue it is to have a system that will fit on a floppy. I would think that being able to boot off of a USB drive or a CD/USB combo would be more pertinent today given as few machines even come with a floppy as standard equipment anymore.  USB booting would eliminate the futzing around with non standard disk sizes and would be a lot more reliable and as well. I have been running some variant of LRP/LEAF since the 2.x days both at home and for various work related uses and the most common failure is mechanical i.e. drives or fans. I switched to booting off of CF cards and fanless power supplies a couple of years ago and am much closer to my goal of having a solid state  appliance that I can install and ignore. Even buying the smallest CF cards available I still need only a small fraction of the card to boot LEAF. The world has moved on from the floppy drive and I think trying to keep future versions of LEAF small enough to boot from a floppy is l
argely an artificial constraint now. If for some reason the use of a floppy is required then older versions of LEAF are still available.

do not misinterpret me, I wrote an early HOWTO about using secure flash
disks for leaf :-( and yes, I agree, I live easily with the flash memory
world.

There are 2 main things that are different from a floppy

- size
- write protection

In my eyes, the write protection is the more important factor. There
have been multiple attempts to solve this, amongst it unloading the
device driver.

There has been a experimental 2.6 release on CVS which was hardly used
by anyone, hey, this is an open source project, get your hands dirty.

cheers

Erich



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
------------------------------------------------------------------------
leaf-user mailing list: leaf-user@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user
Support Request -- http://leaf-project.org/

[Brent Gardner]

Dillabough, Dave wrote:
> Hi Erich,
>
> How much of an issue is having write protection? I can understand that it is better in theory but I can't think of a commercial firewall product (Cisco PIX, Linksys, DLink etc) that does not use flash and that has any sort of write protection. If having boot from R/O media is an issue you could boot from CD and save to a floppy. You could also write protect CF media with a hardware hack to the cable. With USB/CF systems I always keep a backup of the boot media. It's not as simple as a power cycle but I can always get back to a known state if I need to although this has yet to be an issue for me. So from my perspective this would seem to be a non issue for most users and that for those few where it is an issue there are ways around it with some extra work.
>
> Obviously I don't have your perspective on the issue and I may be in the minority here and while I don't need 2.6 features yet it does seem to me that there must be quite a lot of development work that goes into squeezing a working system onto a floppy. It would be a shame if this is being done to no purpose.
>
> Does anyone on the list boot a system from floppy disk or save config files to floppy disk?  
>

I have two systems that are so legacy that they won't boot from a CD.
But don't let them hold back progress.  If a 2.6 kernel means better
support for modern NICs and USB devices I'm all for it.


Brent Gardner



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
------------------------------------------------------------------------
leaf-user mailing list: leaf-user@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user
Support Request -- http://leaf-project.org/

[Harry Lachanas]

Robert K Coffman Jr. -Info From Data Corp. wrote:

>>> I'm considering chaining two Leaf Routers together, one to handle the
>>> multiple ISPs and one for TC as a temporary solution,
>>>      
>
>  >How does this solve the 2.6 requirement?
>
> Erich,
>
> The basic issue is I can't use HIGH_ROUTE_MARKS=Yes in Shorewall.  As a
> result, I can't do both Multi-ISP and Traffic Shaping on the same box.  All
> I did by chaining two routers together was put the traffic shaping on one,
> and multi-ISP on the other.
>
> - Bob
>
>
>  

I am sorry to say that was a major issue for me to ... ( HIGH_ROUTE_MARKS )
After some discussion that I've started on this list 2-3 years ago and
got no results ...
I made a  switch to alpine .... that is based on 2.6 series kernels

Sorry list.
Harry

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
> trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
> what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
> Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> leaf-user mailing list: leaf-user@...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user
> Support Request -- http://leaf-project.org/
>
>  

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
------------------------------------------------------------------------
leaf-user mailing list: leaf-user@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user
Support Request -- http://leaf-project.org/

[Gordon Bos]

Brent Gardner wrote:

> Dillabough, Dave wrote:
>> Hi Erich,
>>
>> How much of an issue is having write protection? I can understand that it is better in theory but I can't think of a commercial firewall product (Cisco PIX, Linksys, DLink etc) that does not use flash and that has any sort of write protection. If having boot from R/O media is an issue you could boot from CD and save to a floppy. You could also write protect CF media with a hardware hack to the cable. With USB/CF systems I always keep a backup of the boot media. It's not as simple as a power cycle but I can always get back to a known state if I need to although this has yet to be an issue for me. So from my perspective this would seem to be a non issue for most users and that for those few where it is an issue there are ways around it with some extra work.
>>
>> Obviously I don't have your perspective on the issue and I may be in the minority here and while I don't need 2.6 features yet it does seem to me that there must be quite a lot of development work that goes into squeezing a working system onto a floppy. It would be a shame if this is being done to no purpose.
>>
>> Does anyone on the list boot a system from floppy disk or save config files to floppy disk?  
>>
>
> I have two systems that are so legacy that they won't boot from a CD.
> But don't let them hold back progress.  If a 2.6 kernel means better
> support for modern NICs and USB devices I'm all for it.

That would still work. One of my first LRP setups booted from floppy and
then read additional packages from CDROM. All you need is the boot
image, kernel, initrd.lrp and leaf.cfg. With the current kernel that
adds up to just over 900k. So how big would this 2.6 kernel be?

Gordon

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
------------------------------------------------------------------------
leaf-user mailing list: leaf-user@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user
Support Request -- http://leaf-project.org/

[Martin Hejl]

Hi Robert,

> I see some emails from March of 2008 discussing some initial work on a 2.6
> branch of Leaf.  Can anyone tell me what came of that?  
The status of that branch is the same as in March 2008 - apart from a
few updated packages (with were updated when the packages for the Bering
uClibc branch were updated), no work has been done on this as far as I know.

So, everything I wrote in
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_name=47C99D16.5000208%40hejl.de 
should still apply. The "developername@le..." in the message should read
"developername@..." (the mail archive tries to
protect what it thinks to be email adresses...)

I hope that helps

Martin



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
------------------------------------------------------------------------
leaf-user mailing list: leaf-user@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user
Support Request -- http://leaf-project.org/