On Wed, 03 Jan 2001 09:50:41 MST, Wes Peters wrote:
>> We're on the same page. I was just observing that it was a software change
>> to ifconfig. We're teaching it tricks about creating/associating netgraph
>> nodes with interfaces. Not just configuring interfaces.
>
> That *is* configuring interfaces, you're just using a new mechanism to
> do it.
>
> ifconfig fxp0 192.168.42.11 netmask 255.255.255.0 encap snap
That works fine. But if SNAP, or EthII are implemented in netgraph
instead of the ethernet infrastructure, you need to create a ng0
device, and then stick the layer-3 address on that.
<SOAPBOX>
I agree that you could educate ifconfig in the ways of netgraph
and hide it all behind the command interface you propose. It's a
migration to a broader view of interfaces for ifconfig(8). Right
now, ifconfig(8) is basically a front-end for ioctl()'s on a single
network existing interface.
The UNIX paradigm is powerful because of many well-made, single-task
tools. In most regards, ifconfig is complete. Adding significant
functionalty causes ripples. For starters, libnetgraph moves into
libstand, and picobsd. Or we could fork ifconfig(8) to have two
variants.
I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm just saying that it makes me feel
dirty and violated.
</SOAPBOX>
> Given their lack of netgraph, and apparent reluctance to implement it,
> that doesn't seem much of a problem at this time.
Yup. I'd prefer to see FreeBSD take the higher-road and strive to
be compatible and cooperative whenver possible. Instead of continued
isolation, divergance, and proprietization. Hey, I don't even
currently run Net/OpenBSD. ;-)
- Steve
--
C. Stephen Gunn URL: http://www.waterspout.com/
WaterSpout Communications, Inc. Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
427 North 6th Street Phone: +1 765.742.6628
Lafayette, IN 47901 Fax: +1 765.742.0646
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
