Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 19:38:10 -0500 From: dennis <dennis@etinc.com> To: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ifconfig reports bogus netmask Message-ID: <3.0.32.19971216193810.00b3b480@etinc.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 08:59 AM 12/17/97 +1030, you wrote: >On Tue, Dec 16, 1997 at 10:39:08AM -0500, dennis wrote: >> >> Is there any chance of this getting fixed? Its been broken forever. I'm >> talking about PTP interfaces, where the routes are inherently host >> mask routes. ifconfig reports the natural mask or whatever you give >> it....and its rather confusing trying to explain to the woodchucks that >> its wrong. > >Well, ifconfig reports the net mask that is set. And yes, it's >inappropriate for "real" point-to-point interfaces. But it's not the >reporting that's wrong, it's the setting. Just set all ones when >setting the interface, and you'll be OK. > >I suppose I should mention that there's a sizeable minority who think >this is the way the net mask *should* be. Maybe one of them will >explain, I keep forgetting. I disagree. The route is expicitly set by the command to be a host route, but the mask (and I'm talking about the case where no mask is specified in the ifconfig) is set to the natural mask (class, that is). Even if you specifiy a non-host mask, a host route is set...if that is the case then only a host mask should be allowed, and a host mask should be forced. You SHOULD be able to override the host setting, that is, if a mask is specified explicitly then the route should be set according to the netmask. Dennis
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3.0.32.19971216193810.00b3b480>