From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Feb 2 16:58:33 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 537409BF for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 16:58:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 218FA7F for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 16:58:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bugs.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t12GwXPa012135 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 16:58:33 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 197270] [Patch] Improve output of ifconfig command Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 16:58:32 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: bin X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.0-CURRENT X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Some People X-Bugzilla-Who: hrs@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Status: Open X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 16:58:33 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197270 --- Comment #8 from Hiroki Sato --- (In reply to commit-hook from comment #4) > Reorganize the list of addresses associated with an interface and group them > based on the address family. This should help to recognize interfaces with > multiple AF (e.g. ipv4 and ipv6) with many aliases or additional addresses. The > order of addresses inside a single group is strictly preserved. > > Improve the scope_id output for AF_INET6 families, as the > current approach uses hexadecimal string that is basically the ID of an > interface, whilst this information is already depicted by getnameinfo(3) call. > Therefore, now ifconfig just prints the scope of address as it is defined in > 2.4 of RFC 2373. Please revert the second half of this change. Checking the address structure in userland in the manner of in6_print_scope() is redundant because almost the same check is already performed in the kernel when getifaddrs(3) is called. If scope_id > 0, or IN6_IS_ADDR_LOOPBACK() is true, it is link-local. Site-local is deprecated in RFC 3879 and new implementation MUST NOT support it. Plus, using hard-coded values of address prefixes is inappropriate. This kind of scope check should be performed by only IN6_IS_ADDR_{LINKLOCAL,SITELOCAL,...} macros if you want a strict one. And I am not sure why "Multicast" is added here. The multicast group membership list is returned by getifmaddrs(3), not getifaddrs(3). Also, RFC 4007 specifies that at least non-negative decimal integer SHOULD be supported as scope zone id. We support it. However, if removing the scopeid part, it becomes difficult to know the zone id. This is the reason why scopeid is displayed along with %zone_id. A symbolic "%zone_id" itself means "it is non-global". Is "scope: link" still needed? Putting the above aside, I do not think it is a good idea to change the command line output because it breaks consistency (e.g. ifmcstat(8) also uses scopeid notation) and compatibility of scripts which depend on it, for example. scopeid has lived for 10+ years. While adding "scope: link" or something may be acceptable, replacing scopeid with it does not look a good improvement, at least to me. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.