-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 757
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
interfaces: avoid long names with stacked _wlan, _vlan, _stf, ... #3222
Comments
|
I think you should be able to revert this change adf314a, but we have to think of a better solution to prevent an overrun in this case. |
|
Commit might not be all of it, careful with the revert.
It’s a bit sad as this has been in testing for a very long time.
FWIW, the issue here is the excessive VLAN naming scheme, it would be better to change this, I think FreeBSD uses em0.123, but it may break a couple of “_vlan” Scans in the code.
What do you think?
… On 12. Feb 2019, at 08:36, Ad Schellevis ***@***.***> wrote:
_stf suggests a 6rd or 6to4 network, we changed something in the naming, to use the technical name instead of the logical one, which seems to be 1 character longer.
I think you should be able to revert this change adf314a, but we have to think of a better solution to prevent an overrun in this case.
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
|
|
@fichtner I'll take a look |
|
Changing the vlan naming scheme is a bit too tricky in the short term, since these are stored and there's more logic tied to it (if we change it, already configured devices will still use the previous name). Most of the times the length doesn't lead to issues, it's probably a better idea to fix the It should be easy to test, low impact for as far as I can see. |
|
In this case let me rather add a compatibility layer with the old naming scheme? |
|
and leave the |
|
Hmm, I'm not sure diverting from _wlan _vlan _stf scheme is of any benefit if we have a "better" and also confirmed working versions which is the old one from pre-19.1. I agree with the larger cleanup. We also need a 19.1.x target that reboots so that no intermittent upgrade issues exist so I'll do a clean revert into a working version. I just don't want to break things even if it looks easy. |
|
I'll leave this up to you then, reverting back to the previous naming scheme is fine for the short term too. |
|
I do have 6rd set up on that interface, so that makes sense. I was also seeing IPv6 related error messages in the log. @fichtner That does this mean for my set up? Is there anything I can do to get 19.1 working? Or do I have to wait for a fix? |
|
@thomasjsn I'll prepare a temporary fix for you, @fichtner can look at the final solution later |
|
here you are, should revert the behaviour back to 18.7 |
|
@AdSchellevis Thanks, so; Install 19.1, upgrade to 19.1.1 and apply patch? |
|
I expect you can apply on both versions, so if you need the connectivity, first patch 19.1, then upgrade and apply again. |
|
@AdSchellevis thank you, I'm going to add it to 19.1.2 as well. @thomasjsn feedback about patch making things work again is appreciated so we can safely go ahead and fix the underlying issue(s) later. |
(cherry picked from commit 2eabec2)
|
This is what I did:
I'd say it looks like the patch works :) |
|
@thomasjsn thanks for confirming, I'll leave the rest up to @fichtner |
|
Already queued up for 19.1.2, thanks! |
|
Same as |
|
There is no point doing this other than causing breakage. Nothing bad happened in two years. |
Since we also change the vlan names here for new devices to eventually avoid overlong vlan interface names (#3222) we need to make sure the rest of the system knows the new prefixes. Some related style changes in code and text.
I've tried to upgrade from 18.7.10, and to live-boot 19.1 and 19.1.1. When I do I loose all internet access; both IPv4 and 6 on all connected devices.
Using the ping diagnostics from OPNsense itself I can see that IPv4 connectivity works, but IPv6 fails. During boot the following message is listed twice "Configuring firewall...failed".
I get a few notifications regarding too long interface name;

Looking in the log I found this, it seems to indicate that the interface using VLAN for my WAN does not exist.

I dont recognize the literal name


igb0_vlan102_stf, but both the VLAN and interface does exist.Have some internal names changed from 18.7 to 19.1? It does look like the name of the interface is

igb0_vlan102. Without the_stfsuffix.What is happening? Any more information I can provide?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: