From owner-freebsd-isp  Mon Feb 17 16:23:28 1997
Return-Path: <owner-isp>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA27332
          for isp-outgoing; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 16:23:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA27326
          for <freebsd-isp@freebsd.org>; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 16:23:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.5/8.6.9) with ESMTP id QAA28203; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 16:23:18 -0800 (PST)
To: Brandon Gillespie <brandon@cold.org>
cc: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Which way is 'correct'? (was: Re: Aliases) 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 17 Feb 1997 13:33:54 MST."
             <Pine.NEB.3.95.970217133109.12769A-100000@cold.org> 
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 16:23:18 -0800
Message-ID: <28199.856225398@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-isp@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>     ifconfig ed0 alias x.y.z netmask 255.255.255.255
>     arp add x.y.z 127.0.0.1
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Not needed.

So the ed0 case eliminates an extra arp call.  I suppose you could
thusly deem it superior, but either method works so I also wouldn't go
to the trouble of changing an existing system. :-)

					Jordan