conf/62772: static_routes needs an example in /etc/defaults/rc.conf

Fri Feb 13 01:10:32 PST 2004

The following reply was made to PR conf/62772; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: <hoanga at alum.rpi.edu>
To: <kris at obsecurity.org>
Cc: <freebsd-gnats-submit at FreeBSD.org>
Subject: Re: conf/62772: static_routes needs an example in /etc/defaults/rc.conf
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 01:06:20 -0800

 This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

 ------=_NextPart_000_15C4D_01C3F1CD.973860F0
 Content-Type: text/plain;
 	charset="iso-8859-1"
 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

 Hi there,

 > The documentation is (surprise!) in the manpage.

 > static_routes
 > (str) Set to the list of static routes that are to be added
 > at system boot time. If not set to ``NO'' then for each
 > whitespace separated element in the value, a route_
 > variable is assumed to exist whose contents will later be
 > passed to a ``route add'' operation.

 >Is that really unclear enough to require an example?

 Thanks for the quick response. I had read the documentation
 in the manpage as well and misinterpreted 'Set to the list of static
 routes'
 as 'please insert your static route here' rather than 'please
 put a list of identifiers that are space seperated that will be used as
 a 
 reference to route_ that containts all the options 
 you need to feed to the route command to add the route'.
 I understand that this is documented if you read this very carefully
 however I don't feel it's crystal clear to people who are slow to
 read these manpages (like me).
 After a reboot and realizing I was making a mistake I started
 looking for an example to clarify exactly what the manpage meant.
 (I personally like looking at examples to clarify manpage explanations).
 In the end I just looked at /etc/rc.d/routing (after tracing the system
 startup scripts) and and figured out how static_routes was parsed
 and its relation to route_. This process took me about
 a few hours of looking at the documentation, trying my own examples and
 finally looking at the shell scripts for what I assumed was a 15 minute 
 change and check. So yes, I feel this is unclear. Considering the
 large amount of examples and documentation that went into making 
 an IPv6 static route, a few lines for creating a static IPv4 route
 wouldn't 
 hurt for someone else in the future.

 Best regards,
 Alain 

 ------=_NextPart_000_15C4D_01C3F1CD.973860F0
 Content-Type: text/html
 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

 <HTML>
 <BODY>
 Hi there,<br>
 <br>
 > The documentation is (surprise!) in the manpage.<br>
 <br>
 >     static_routes<br>
 >                 (str) Set to the list of static routes that are to be added<br>
 >                 at system boot time.  If not set to ``NO'' then for each<br>
 >                 whitespace separated element in the value, a route_<element><br>
 >                 variable is assumed to exist whose contents will later be<br>
 >                 passed to a ``route add'' operation.<br>
 <br>
 >Is that really unclear enough to require an example?<br>
 <br>
 Thanks for the quick response.   I had read the documentation<br>
 in the manpage as well and misinterpreted 'Set to the list of static routes'<br>
 as 'please insert your static route here' rather than 'please<br>
 put a list of identifiers that are space seperated that will be used as a <br>
 reference to route_<identifier> that containts all the options <br>
 you need to feed to the route command to add the route'.<br>
 I understand that this is documented if you read this very carefully<br>
 however I don't feel it's crystal clear to people who are slow to<br>
 read these manpages (like me).<br>
    After a reboot and realizing I was making a mistake I started<br>
 looking for an example to clarify exactly what the manpage meant.<br>
 (I personally like looking at examples to clarify manpage explanations).<br>
 In the end I just looked at /etc/rc.d/routing (after tracing the system<br>
 startup scripts) and and figured out how static_routes was parsed<br>
 and its relation to route_<netid>.  This process took me about<br>
 a few hours of looking at the documentation, trying my own examples and<br>
 finally looking at the shell scripts for what I assumed was a 15 minute <br>
 change and check.  So yes, I feel this is unclear.   Considering the<br>
 large amount of examples and documentation that went into making <br>
 an IPv6 static route, a few lines for creating a static IPv4 route wouldn't <br>
 hurt for someone else in the future.<br>
 <br>
 Best regards,<br>
 Alain
 </BODY></HTML>

 ------=_NextPart_000_15C4D_01C3F1CD.973860F0--