On 02/11/2015 05:51, Julian Elischer wrote: > On 2/11/15 5:55 PM, Matt Churchyard wrote: > >> >> Are there actually valid use cases for these types of network? > yes. > I've had networks that were the first and last quarter of a /24, and > the middle two quarters were separate nets. > > Sure, it made my skin crawl, but I was in a pinch to get more machines > onto that /26. > all four were served by the same router so only one router needed to > know.. > > I have however at times though we could think about making ifconfig at > give a warning. > (but not an error). > >> I'm learning towards the opinion that they should be rejected unless >> the user specifically overrides it (with something like an ifconfig >> flag or sysctl).
These valid use cases are so rare, I would favor making this an error in ifconfig, but also providing a flag to silence the message and accept the mask. The error message could even mention the name of the flag, to be helpful. For example: # ifconfig igb0 netmask 250.250.250.0 ifconfig: netmask should be contiguous and left-justified; specify "incontiguous" to override # ifconfig igb0 incontiguous netmask 250.250.250.0 # If it's just a warning, that warning will get very annoying to people who are forced to use such a mask. (They're already forced to use such a network!) Eric _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
