From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 18 16:43:35 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 382FD106568B for ; Wed, 18 Mar 2009 16:43:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sam@freebsd.org) Received: from ebb.errno.com (ebb.errno.com [69.12.149.25]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0655F8FC1C for ; Wed, 18 Mar 2009 16:43:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sam@freebsd.org) Received: from trouble.errno.com (trouble.errno.com [10.0.0.248]) (authenticated bits=0) by ebb.errno.com (8.13.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id n2IGhYsC088058 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 18 Mar 2009 09:43:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sam@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <49C124B6.2030503@freebsd.org> Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 09:43:34 -0700 From: Sam Leffler Organization: FreeBSD Project User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (X11/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, dhorn2000@gmail.com References: <200903181626.n2IGQgqt054487@lurza.secnetix.de> In-Reply-To: <200903181626.n2IGQgqt054487@lurza.secnetix.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-DCC-URT-Metrics: ebb.errno.com; whitelist Cc: Subject: Re: Dynamic loading of network kernel modules? X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 16:43:35 -0000 Oliver Fromme wrote: > David Horn wrote: > > Oliver Fromme wrote: > > > > > > network_interfaces="bge0 lo0" > > > > Ah. Ok, now I am understanding your scenario. > > > > I thought that using 'network_interfaces' with anything other than > > "AUTO" was in the process of being depreciated ? > > Well, the manual page says so, but I think that is a > mistake. There are cases where you have to specify the > list of interfaces explicitly. The situation described > in this thread is one such case. > > My opinion is that it is good to have the ability to let > things be done automatically, but it is bad to remove the > ability to do things manually. This is UNIX, after all. > I personally hate the auto-magic-loading of modules that ifconfig does. Remember that we tried to yank it once before but had to bring it back for compatibility. If one argues that ifconfig should be consistent in it's treatment of module loading then the patch is fine and should go in. Otherwise... Sam