status update

[Francis Dupont]

> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:17 AM, Francis Dupont <fdupont at isc.org> wrote:
> > I don't know what happened exactly for the demos (note the plural)
> > yesterday. We had a problem because the WNDRs have no ISC DHCPv4
> > servers but there are some ways to fix this (other than adding the
> > missing (big) binary, for instance using a CRA service for the whole
> > "WAN" link).
> 
> 6+MB of binary is rather untenable,

=> this is why I setup the laptop B4 to provide the CRA service on the
link.  When the demo will be back in the lab, we'll use that.

> and I would prefer we expend the time resources to make these tools
> use shared libs to get that back under 2MB,

=> it is in the hands of the DHCP team (I just showed it is easy).

> and if at all possible, make it use the existing bind 9.9.0
> version of these libs, which would get us under 500k or so.

=> named uses library compiled with very different parameters
so it is far less easy.

> As for switching b4 dhcp servers, that costs an existing, very fully
> featured gui interface to dnsmasq, the local ip database, etc.

=> another solution is to fix dnsmasq but IMHO it is not
in the agenda...

> > On my side on a Linux (vs. xxxWRT) based SD-B4 (aka CPE laptop)
> > the setup is controlled by a rc script with start/stop commands
> > so ready for the next step, i.e., the reconfiguration handling
> > (soft way vs rebbot).
> 
> In the last few minutes of the demo attempt, I gained some insight as
> to what was going wrong. I managed to get the xxxWrt b4 to finally get
> through the aftr. It turns out that inserting a route with a metric
> seems to be required.

=> arg! the ip command is not exactly the same than on standard Linux,
same for ifconfig, same even for the bash (oops, ash)...

> we need better logging by default (no -q option, anymore, PLEASE!).

=> note I *always* insisted on the flags which drop logging in
my messages.

> > Note there is nothing yet about multicast: no idea of what should
> > be done, in particular at the AFTR side.
> 
> I'd requested the hardware to test SSM (single source multicast)
> several weeks ago. It arrived sunday, and I've been too busy to even
> think about it. In my chat with alain he seems to think that the code
> we got from that intern was enough to do the job he wanted...
> 
> ... but it was obvious he hadn't looked at it. I'm preparing to take a
> look at it again, but I think I'll need a dose of strong coffee.

=> good luck...

Francis Dupont <fdupont at isc.org>