On Tuesday 13 February 2007 02:38 am, Oliver Fromme wrote: > JoaoBR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Oliver Fromme wrote: > > > No, not at all. As soon as you use the terms "primary IP > > > address" and "secondary IP addresses", you imply that they > > > are not equal. But they are equal. It's just a list of > > > IP addresses assigned to an interface which happens to have > > > a certain order. > > > > nobody claims that there is an master-slave order or something, > > alias is the secondary in order of time, but not in value, I do not > > even understand why you talking so much about this, the point is > > more than clear > > No, it doesn't seem to be clear to you. > > As soon as you use the terms "primary" and "secondary", > you are implying a certain order in the meaning of the > IP addresses. But as far as the ifconfig(8) tool is > concerned, there is no order, no matter ow you would > interpret it. In theory, ifconfig could print the IP > addresses for an interface in random order, and each > time in a different order. Which of them would you > call "primary" then? Which of them would be "aliases"?
For a set of IPs in the same subnet on the same interface, wouldn't the primary IP be the one with the proper netmask, and all IPs with netmasks of /32 be secondary? In that situation, wouldn't deleting the primary IP cause connection issues for the rest of the IPs? For a set of IPs in separate subnets, each with their own non-/32 netmasks, there wouldn't really be a distinction between primary / secondary. -- Freddie Cash [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
