On 08.04.2011 16:08, Sergey Vinogradov wrote:
Hi, hackers.
I have a question: why ipv4 netmask is displayed by ifconfig in hex
format? Isn't dot-decimal notation more human-readable? Will the
attached patch break something in the very bad way?
___
fr
On 09.04.2011 16:07, Damien Fleuriot wrote:
On 4/9/11 7:33 AM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
Although I see the value of your and Sergey's argument, the problem is
that it may cause unexpected breakage for other third parties that
depend on a particular behavior in FreeBSD as Bjoern and others have
s
On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 12:41:05PM -0400, dieter...@engineer.com wrote:
>Paul Schenkeveld writes:
>>Although non-contiguous netmasks are not legal anymore in IPv4, our
>>ifconfig still allows to do something like:
>>
>> # ifconfig em0 inet 10.0.5.2 netmask 255.0.255.0
>> # ifconfig em0
>> em0
On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 11:43:16AM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
> > Non-contigous netmasks are legal in IPv4. What do you do if someone adds
> > the CIDR flag but the netmask cannot be represented in CIDR notation?
>
> They have become illegal in the fullness of time.
I'll rephrase my point, then:
Paul Schenkeveld writes:
Although non-contiguous netmasks are not legal anymore in IPv4, our
ifconfig still allows to do something like:
# ifconfig em0 inet 10.0.5.2 netmask 255.0.255.0
# ifconfig em0
em0: flags=8843 metric 0
mtu 1500
options=219b
ether xx:xx:xx:xx:xx
On 4/9/11 7:33 AM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>
> Although I see the value of your and Sergey's argument, the problem is
> that it may cause unexpected breakage for other third parties that
> depend on a particular behavior in FreeBSD as Bjoern and others have
> suggested; I have a script at least th
Warner Losh wrote:
> > Non-contigous netmasks are legal in IPv4 ...
>
> They have become illegal in the fullness of time.
and/or the fullness of the address space, I suspect :)
Even if they were legal, I have a hard time imagining
a practical use case.
__
On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 10:33:17PM -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 9:54 PM, J. Hellenthal wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 07:36:45PM +0400, Sergey Vinogradov wrote:
>>>On 08.04.2011 19:23, Mike Oliver wrote:
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 08:08, Sergey Vinogradov
wrote:
>>
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 9:54 PM, J. Hellenthal wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 07:36:45PM +0400, Sergey Vinogradov wrote:
>>On 08.04.2011 19:23, Mike Oliver wrote:
>>>On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 08:08, Sergey Vinogradov wrote:
Hi, hackers.
I have a question: why ipv4 netmask is displayed by if
On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 07:36:45PM +0400, Sergey Vinogradov wrote:
>On 08.04.2011 19:23, Mike Oliver wrote:
>>On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 08:08, Sergey Vinogradov wrote:
>>>Hi, hackers.
>>>I have a question: why ipv4 netmask is displayed by ifconfig in hex format?
>>>Isn't dot-decimal notation more hum
On Fri, 8 Apr 2011, Warner Losh wrote:
Non-contiguous netmasks are *not* legal anymore in IPv4.
Just reference the RFC and everyone will agree... *oops* ;-)
On the general thread:
I'd seriously stop bothering with any decisions that will change the way
IPv4 works or has worked or the output
On 08/04/2011 16:53, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> One thing I've been curious about for a while that I haven't had an
> opportunity to look into is: what does IPV6 look like? I understand
> that the /netmask bit is added to the end of addresses, but what does
> the netmask actually look like?
Like this
On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 01:16:17PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
>
> On Apr 8, 2011, at 1:00 PM, Sergey Vinogradov wrote:
>
> > 08.04.2011 19:55, Mike Bristow пиÑеÑ:
> >> On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 07:40:56PM +0400, Sergey Vinogradov wrote:
> >>> On 08.04.2011 19:23, Warner Losh wrote:
> On Ap
On Apr 8, 2011, at 1:00 PM, Sergey Vinogradov wrote:
> 08.04.2011 19:55, Mike Bristow пишет:
>> On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 07:40:56PM +0400, Sergey Vinogradov wrote:
>>> On 08.04.2011 19:23, Warner Losh wrote:
On Apr 8, 2011, at 6:08 AM, Sergey Vinogradov wrote:
If we really wanted to make
08.04.2011 19:55, Mike Bristow пишет:
On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 07:40:56PM +0400, Sergey Vinogradov wrote:
On 08.04.2011 19:23, Warner Losh wrote:
On Apr 8, 2011, at 6:08 AM, Sergey Vinogradov wrote:
If we really wanted to make it human readable, we'd output 10.2.3.4/24
So, maybe, while followi
[snip]
So, maybe, while following the POLA, we should add an option, as Daniel
mentioned above? To output the CIDR?
Eh... I don't know if doing this would be wise because it might break
some 3rd party mechanisms for parsing the output (as broken as you
might think it is), in particular (for ex
On Apr 8, 2011, at 9:55 AM, Mike Bristow wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 07:40:56PM +0400, Sergey Vinogradov wrote:
>> On 08.04.2011 19:23, Warner Losh wrote:
>>> On Apr 8, 2011, at 6:08 AM, Sergey Vinogradov wrote:
>>> If we really wanted to make it human readable, we'd output 10.2.3.4/24
>>
>
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 11:53, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>
> One thing I've been curious about for a while that I haven't had an
> opportunity to look into is: what does IPV6 look like? I understand
> that the /netmask bit is added to the end of addresses, but what does
> the netmask actually look like
On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 07:40:56PM +0400, Sergey Vinogradov wrote:
> On 08.04.2011 19:23, Warner Losh wrote:
> > On Apr 8, 2011, at 6:08 AM, Sergey Vinogradov wrote:
> > If we really wanted to make it human readable, we'd output 10.2.3.4/24
>
> So, maybe, while following the POLA, we should add an
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 8:40 AM, Sergey Vinogradov wrote:
> On 08.04.2011 19:23, Warner Losh wrote:
>>
>> On Apr 8, 2011, at 6:08 AM, Sergey Vinogradov wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, hackers.
>>> I have a question: why ipv4 netmask is displayed by ifconfig in hex
>>> format? Isn't dot-decimal notation more huma
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 08:08, Sergey Vinogradov wrote:
> Hi, hackers.
> I have a question: why ipv4 netmask is displayed by ifconfig in hex format?
> Isn't dot-decimal notation more human-readable? Will the attached patch
> break something in the very bad way?
Who's using IPv4 anymore? ;-)
Seri
On 4/8/11 5:40 PM, Sergey Vinogradov wrote:
> On 08.04.2011 19:23, Warner Losh wrote:
>>
>> On Apr 8, 2011, at 6:08 AM, Sergey Vinogradov wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, hackers.
>>> I have a question: why ipv4 netmask is displayed by ifconfig in hex
>>> format? Isn't dot-decimal notation more human-readable?
On 08.04.2011 19:23, Warner Losh wrote:
On Apr 8, 2011, at 6:08 AM, Sergey Vinogradov wrote:
Hi, hackers.
I have a question: why ipv4 netmask is displayed by ifconfig in hex format?
Isn't dot-decimal notation more human-readable? Will the attached patch break
something in the very bad way?
On 08.04.2011 19:23, Mike Oliver wrote:
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 08:08, Sergey Vinogradov wrote:
Hi, hackers.
I have a question: why ipv4 netmask is displayed by ifconfig in hex format?
Isn't dot-decimal notation more human-readable? Will the attached patch
break something in the very bad way?
On Apr 8, 2011, at 6:08 AM, Sergey Vinogradov wrote:
> Hi, hackers.
> I have a question: why ipv4 netmask is displayed by ifconfig in hex format?
> Isn't dot-decimal notation more human-readable? Will the attached patch break
> something in the very bad way?
This is a gratuitous change that wo
On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 16:08:38 +0400, Sergey Vinogradov wrote:
Hi, hackers.
I have a question: why ipv4 netmask is displayed by ifconfig in hex
format? Isn't dot-decimal notation more human-readable? Will the
attached patch break something in the very bad way?
At least, it may break some scripts.
26 matches
Mail list logo
