Proposed Change - RFC - net-tools to iproute2

Matthew Burgess matthew at linuxfromscratch.org
Sun Jun 27 16:25:53 PDT 2004


On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 16:05:57 -0700
"Jim Gifford" <lfs at jg555.com> wrote:

> I'm currently proposing a change, I have made this change on my system
> and it does effect performance.
> 
> I propose the move from net-tools to iproute2.

I'd like to see this go in a.s.a.p.  I've looked over the thread and
there seem to be to be 3 main points against immediate inclusion:

1) tools provided by net-tools which don't have a replacement in
iproute2

* I've had a look at http://www.lartc.org and `netstat` `route` and
`ifconfig` would all appear to be covered by the `ip` binary, at least
the functionality I'd expect in a *base* system, i.e. LFS, is described
in http://lartc.org/howto/lartc.iproute2.explore.html.  However, that
said, I'm am not by any means an authority when it comes to networking
issues, so feel free to point out that this isn't in fact adequate for a
base system.  My opinion is based on: 1) Can I bring an interface
up/down 2) Can I see which interfaces are up 3) Can I view & change the
routing tables.  I'd be interested to hear from you if there are any
core networking features I've left out here that a base system should be
able to handle.

2) Dependency on Berkeley DB

* If we suppress the building of `arp` then we no longer require db. 
I'd assume that ARP isn't too common a requirement for a base system,
and that you'll know if you need it.  As long as we point to BLFS (and
BLFS has instructions for rebuilding iproute2 with db support) then I
don't see this as an issue.

3) `hostname` binary

* This, of course, used to come from net-tools.  coreutils also offers
one, so we wouldn't be without it, although the buggy (or non-existent!)
"-f" switch may cause problems for some people.  Reading through the
discussions on the coreutils mailing-list hasn't made things any clearer
for me on whether one should even need `hostname` to have recognise
*any* arguments - it looks like it's another political issue, and hence
the subject of never-ending debates.  I'll think this over some more,
but I don't see this as a show-stopper for removing net-tools at the
moment.

One further point.  Whatever happens with net-tools or iproute2, I think
a link to the firewall section of BLFS is warranted - as the authors of
the iproute2 HOWTO also mention - routing & filtering go hand-in-hand.
 Maybe the link is best left for chapter 8 (configuring the network)
though?

Best regards,

Matt.



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list