On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 09:36:25PM +0100, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> > > # ifconfig re0
> > > re0: flags=8843 mtu 1500
> > > options=1b
> > > inet 88.198.44.136 netmask 0xffe0 broadcast 88.198.44.159
> > > inet 88.198.173.154 netmask 0xfff8 broadcast 88.198.173.159
Freddie Cash wrote:
> Oliver Fromme wrote:
> > Freddie Cash wrote:
> > > 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?
> >
> > That's historic. :-) Old vers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > > In that situation, wouldn't deleting the primary IP
> > > cause connection issues for the rest of the IPs?
> >
> > No. I can delete _any_ of the above IP addresses, and the
> > others would still work perfectly fine. I already did
> > things like that (
Hi!
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 07:37:17PM +0100, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> Freddie Cash wrote:
> > 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?
>
> That's historic. :-)
* Oliver Fromme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20070212 19:11]:
> But you called it "confusing". That's just your personal
> perception. It doesn't mean it is confusing to everybody.
> In fact it might be useful to others. It _is_ useful to
> me, for example, and I would object for that syntax to go
> awa
> > In that situation, wouldn't deleting the primary IP
> > cause connection issues for the rest of the IPs?
>
> No. I can delete _any_ of the above IP addresses, and the
> others would still work perfectly fine. I already did
> things like that (on a different machine).
>
> As for outgoing
On Tuesday 13 February 2007 10:37 am, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> Freddie Cash wrote:
> > 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?
>
> That's historic. :-) Old versi
Freddie Cash wrote:
> Oliver Fromme wrote:
> > If asked what "-alias" does, I would reply that it is an
> > alias for "delete" or "remove", which removes an IP address
> > from an interface. According to the docs, the IP address
> > to be removed must be specified. The docs don't mention
>
Freddie Cash wrote:
> 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?
That's historic. :-) Old versions of FreeBSD indeed
required the netmask of the "aliases" to be /3
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 05:19:59PM +, Pete French wrote:
> > 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
> >
On Tuesday 13 February 2007 12:44 am, JoaoBR wrote:
> On Monday 12 February 2007 22:37, Joerg Pernfuss wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 19:18:54 -0300
> >
> > JoaoBR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I believe the problem here is that
> > >
> > > ifconfig_nic="inet IP"
> > > ifconfig_nic="ether MAC"
>
On Monday 12 February 2007 11:57 pm, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> Kevin Way wrote:
> > Oliver Fromme wrote:
> > > But you called it "confusing". That's just your personal
> > > perception. It doesn't mean it is confusing to everybody.
> >
> > If asked what -alias does, would you really reply "it r
> 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?
Indeed. I too am no
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'
JoaoBR wrote:
The only correct thing you say here is that all IPs are equal - and - nobody
EVER said something different.
Aliasing does not say anything about priority of the Ip it is simply related
to the time the interface was set with the IP so the first IP is the one
which was set first
J. T. Farmer wrote:
> Oliver Fromme wrote:
> > But when removing something without specifying which one,
> > it makes some sense to simply remove the first existing
> > address on that interface. It would even be OK with me
> > to remove the last one, or an arbitrary one -- I use that
> > sh
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 hap
On Tuesday 13 February 2007 04:57, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> Kevin Way wrote:
> > Oliver Fromme wrote:
> > > But you called it "confusing". That's just your personal
> > > perception. It doesn't mean it is confusing to everybody.
> > >
> > If asked what -alias does, would you really reply "it
Kevin Way wrote:
> Oliver Fromme wrote:
> > But you called it "confusing". That's just your personal
> > perception. It doesn't mean it is confusing to everybody.
> >
> If asked what -alias does, would you really reply "it removes the
> primary IP,
> while leaving the alias?" Be hones
On Monday 12 February 2007 22:37, Joerg Pernfuss wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 19:18:54 -0300
>
> JoaoBR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I believe the problem here is that
> >
> > ifconfig_nic="inet IP"
> > ifconfig_nic="ether MAC"
> >
> > does not work on one line and does not work on two either, th
On Mon, February 12, 2007 8:01 pm, Sam Leffler wrote:
> Freddie Cash wrote:
>> On Monday 12 February 2007 11:06 am, John Hay wrote:
>>> Also with the atheros driver I had problems in the past with some
>>> parameters that did not like to be on a single commandline.
>>
>> At least with the ath(4) d
Freddie Cash wrote:
> On Monday 12 February 2007 11:06 am, John Hay wrote:
>> Also with the atheros driver I had problems in the past with some
>> parameters that did not like to be on a single commandline.
>
> At least with the ath(4) driver, it all comes down to the order the
> options are wri
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 02:37:53AM +0100, Joerg Pernfuss wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 19:18:54 -0300
> JoaoBR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I believe the problem here is that
> >
> > ifconfig_nic="inet IP"
> > ifconfig_nic="ether MAC"
> >
> > does not work on one line and does not work on two
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 19:18:54 -0300
JoaoBR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I believe the problem here is that
>
> ifconfig_nic="inet IP"
> ifconfig_nic="ether MAC"
>
> does not work on one line and does not work on two either, the latter
> overrides and or you get an IP address with original MAC or
Oliver Fromme wrote:
> But you called it "confusing". That's just your personal
> perception. It doesn't mean it is confusing to everybody.
>
If asked what -alias does, would you really reply "it removes the
primary IP,
while leaving the alias?" Be honest here.
> Also note that it doesn't h
Oliver Fromme wrote:
In the case of adding something, what should be added if
nothing is specified? Should the tool invent an arbitrary
IP address and add it? Now that would be nonsensical.
But when removing something without specifying which one,
it makes some sense to simply remove the first
Brooks Davis wrote:
> Oliver Fromme wrote:
> > True, not often, but sometimes. I had cases like that in
> > certain environments with bridged networks and arp proxies.
> >
> > I'm fine with your proposed syntax, as long as all the
> > existing ifconfig possibilities continue to be possible,
On Monday 12 February 2007 16:27, Brooks Davis wrote:
> Setting media options and the like via _aliasesX variables makes no
> sense and you don't appear to be doing it so I'm confused by your
> question. The ifconfig_iface_aliasX syntax exists to add IPv4 addresses
> to an interface. New ipv4_addr
On Monday 12 February 2007 16:09, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> >
> > it is not misleading and it is a perfect term. With alias you add
> > secondary addresses to an interface. Like secondary is probably the
> > better word,
>
> No, not at all. As soon as you use the terms "primary IP
> address" and
On Monday 12 February 2007 11:06 am, John Hay wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 11:59:40AM -0600, Brooks Davis wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 06:39:35PM +0100, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> > > Brooks Davis wrote:
> > > > Oliver Fromme wrote:
> > > > > Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> > > > > > Oliver Fromm
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 09:06:59PM +0200, John Hay wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 11:59:40AM -0600, Brooks Davis wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 06:39:35PM +0100, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> > > Brooks Davis wrote:
> > > > Oliver Fromme wrote:
> > > > > Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> > > > > > Oliver
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 01:27:36PM -0600, Brooks Davis wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 11:07:39AM -0800, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> > Does it support media and mediaopt arguments? These are very
> > commonly used. I also rely on this, for what it's worth:
> >
> > openvpn_enable="yes"
> > openvpn_
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 11:59:40AM -0600, Brooks Davis wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 06:39:35PM +0100, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> > Brooks Davis wrote:
> > > Oliver Fromme wrote:
> > > > Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> > > > > Oliver Fromme wrote:
> > > > > FWIW, I still use alias/-alias. Mainly becau
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 11:07:39AM -0800, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 11:59:40AM -0600, Brooks Davis wrote:
> > What do you need to set? It's sets IP and netmask. It doesn't handle
> > broadcast, but I'd be pretty suprised if that's needed often. What else
> > is needed? Ax
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 11:59:40AM -0600, Brooks Davis wrote:
> What do you need to set? It's sets IP and netmask. It doesn't handle
> broadcast, but I'd be pretty suprised if that's needed often. What else
> is needed? Axing ifconfig_iface_aliasX is not needed, but reducing the
> visiability o
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 07:23:33PM +0100, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> Brooks Davis wrote:
> > Oliver Fromme wrote:
> > > Brooks Davis wrote:
> > > > ipv4_addrs_ is a much better replacement IMO. It's easy to
> > > > use and doesn't required the hackish pseudo array traversal used by
> > > > ifconf
Brooks Davis wrote:
> Oliver Fromme wrote:
> > Brooks Davis wrote:
> > > ipv4_addrs_ is a much better replacement IMO. It's easy to
> > > use and doesn't required the hackish pseudo array traversal used by
> > > ifconfig_iface_aliasX.
> >
> > That might work for simple cases, but how do yo
JoaoBR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oliver Fromme wrote:
> > JoaoBR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > "ifconfig nic -alias" is obviously a wired and confusing behaviour
> >
> > It might be confusing to you. Personally I think that the
> > current behaviour isn't that far off.
>
>
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 06:39:35PM +0100, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> Brooks Davis wrote:
> > Oliver Fromme wrote:
> > > Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> > > > Oliver Fromme wrote:
> > > > FWIW, I still use alias/-alias. Mainly because that's what has
> > > > existed historically, and the term "alias" is
Brooks Davis wrote:
> Oliver Fromme wrote:
> > Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> > > Oliver Fromme wrote:
> > > FWIW, I still use alias/-alias. Mainly because that's what has
> > > existed historically, and the term "alias" is what is used in
> > > reference to rc.conf ifconfig_iface_aliasX entries.
On Monday 12 February 2007 12:26, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> JoaoBR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "ifconfig nic -alias" is obviously a wired and confusing behaviour
>
> It might be confusing to you. Personally I think that the
> current behaviour isn't that far off.
>
the question is not you o
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 05:22:22PM +0100, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> > Oliver Fromme wrote:
> > FWIW, I still use alias/-alias. Mainly because that's what has
> > existed historically, and the term "alias" is what is used in
> > reference to rc.conf ifconfig_iface_aliasX e
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> Oliver Fromme wrote:
> [...]
> > The "-alias" parameter simply removes an address from an
> > interface. The term "alias" should really be avoided
> > because it is misleading. You can use "delete" or "remove"
> > which do the same thing. I think "-alias" should re
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 03:26:18PM +0100, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> Changing the behaviour of tools always involves a certain
> danegr of breaking existing script. That's especially true
> for symstem administration commands such as ifconfig that
> are running in automated scripts, and people depend
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 03:26:18PM +0100, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> JoaoBR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Brooks Davis wrote:
> > > Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> > > > Kevin Way wrote:
> > > > > I recently ran into a bug in the jail startup scripts that caused
> this
> > > > > command to be executed:
JoaoBR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brooks Davis wrote:
> > Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> > > Kevin Way wrote:
> > > > I recently ran into a bug in the jail startup scripts that caused this
> > > > command to be executed:
> > > >
> > > > ifconfig bce0 -alias
> > > >
> > > > It turns out t
Ian Smith wrote:
Does not 'remove the network address specified' imply that this should
fail if a) there is no network address specified or b) the address that
is specified is not an existing alias address for the interface?
I tend towards disallowing -alias without argument for reasons of
co
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007, Michael Nottebrock wrote:
> On Saturday, 10. February 2007 12:17, JoaoBR wrote:
> > On Saturday 10 February 2007 01:54, Ian Smith wrote:
> > > Secondly, pardon my ignorance, but what does 'NS' refer to here? That
> > > string / term occurs nowhere else in ifconfig(8).
> >
On Saturday, 10. February 2007 12:17, JoaoBR wrote:
> On Saturday 10 February 2007 01:54, Ian Smith wrote:
> > Secondly, pardon my ignorance, but what does 'NS' refer to here? That
> > string / term occurs nowhere else in ifconfig(8).
>
> nameserver
I think this actually refers to XNS. You can te
On Saturday 10 February 2007 01:54, Ian Smith wrote:
>
> Secondly, pardon my ignorance, but what does 'NS' refer to here? That
> string / term occurs nowhere else in ifconfig(8).
>
nameserver
--
João
A mensagem foi scaneada pelo sistema de e-mail e pode ser considerada segura.
Service
On Fri, 9 Feb 2007, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 09:13:22PM -0500, Kevin Way wrote:
> > I'm as much of a change-hating curmudgeon as the next guy, but if
> > anybody is relying on
> > "ifconfig iface -alias" 's undefined behavior, then they deserve the
> > pain that will co
On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 09:13:22PM -0500, Kevin Way wrote:
> I'm as much of a change-hating curmudgeon as the next guy, but if
> anybody is relying on
> "ifconfig iface -alias" 's undefined behavior, then they deserve the
> pain that will come with a fix.
>
> As it stands the behavior appears to v
Brooks Davis wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 01:49:08PM -0800, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 04:06:56PM -0500, Kevin Way wrote:
>>
>>> I recently ran into a bug in the jail startup scripts that caused this
>>> command to be executed:
>>>
>>> ifconfig bce0 -alias
>
On Friday 09 February 2007 20:29, Brooks Davis wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 01:49:08PM -0800, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 04:06:56PM -0500, Kevin Way wrote:
> > > I recently ran into a bug in the jail startup scripts that caused this
> > > command to be executed:
> > >
>
On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 01:49:08PM -0800, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 04:06:56PM -0500, Kevin Way wrote:
> > I recently ran into a bug in the jail startup scripts that caused this
> > command to be executed:
> >
> > ifconfig bce0 -alias
> >
> > It turns out that this comm
On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 04:06:56PM -0500, Kevin Way wrote:
> I recently ran into a bug in the jail startup scripts that caused this
> command to be executed:
>
> ifconfig bce0 -alias
>
> It turns out that this command eliminated the primary IP for the device.
>
> man ifconfig defines the beh
56 matches
Mail list logo
