[isf-wifidog] Uh oh! We apologize ...

Benoit Grégoire bock at step.polymtl.ca
Ven 11 Mar 10:00:33 EST 2005


On Friday 11 March 2005 06:06, Mina Naguib wrote:
> Philippe April wrote:
> | On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 12:02:27AM -0500, Mina Naguib wrote:
> |>I can think of 2 fixes:
> |>
> |>1. Make the external interface a mandatory config option again
> |>2. (my recommendation) Run the built-in web server on a port other than
> |>port 80.  That way the rule will not interfere with it.  This would also
> |>be a mandatory requirement if we ever implement captive DNS
> |>
> |>As always, everyone's thoughts are always welcome.
> |
> | If I had the choice, I wouldn't go for any of the solutions :)
> |
> | #1 scares me. I think it's a pretty good thing that we don't
> | need this parameter anymore.
> |
> | So I vote #2, unless we can find another way to do it. I LOVE to have
> | the web interface on 80. Plus, it's openwrt's default.
> |
> | I'll think about it, see if I can find any other solution.
>
> I was think of the laborious way of doing it:
>
> After config file is parsed, if external interface is undefined,
> populate it based on the default route
>
> After that point, external interface is guaranteed to be known and we
> can lock-down the offending rule.
>
> Can anyone think of drawbacks of doing it this way ?

I can't think of any drawbacks.

-- 
Benoit Grégoire, http://benoitg.coeus.ca/
-------------- section suivante --------------
Une pièce jointe non texte a été nettoyée...
Nom: non disponible
Type: application/pgp-signature
Taille: 189 octets
Desc: non disponible
Url: http://listes.philippeapril.com/pipermail/wifidog/attachments/20050311/bac4ec71/attachment.pgp


Plus d'informations sur la liste de diffusion WiFiDog