From owner-cvs-sys  Tue Mar 19 06:57:24 1996
Return-Path: owner-cvs-sys
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id GAA05856
          for cvs-sys-outgoing; Tue, 19 Mar 1996 06:57:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jhome.DIALix.COM (root@jhome.DIALix.COM [192.203.228.69])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id GAA05849
          Tue, 19 Mar 1996 06:57:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost.DIALix.oz.au (peter@localhost.DIALix.oz.au [127.0.0.1]) by jhome.DIALix.COM (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA29799; Tue, 19 Mar 1996 22:55:29 +0800 (WST)
Message-Id: <199603191455.WAA29799@jhome.DIALix.COM>
X-Authentication-Warning: jhome.DIALix.COM: Host peter@localhost.DIALix.oz.au [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol
To: guido@gvr.win.tue.nl (Guido van Rooij)
cc: fenner@parc.xerox.com (Bill Fenner), fenner@freefall.freebsd.org,
        CVS-committers@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-all@freefall.freebsd.org,
        cvs-sys@freefall.freebsd.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet in.c 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 18 Mar 1996 06:41:22 +0100."
             <199603180541.GAA22370@gvr.win.tue.nl> 
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 22:55:29 +0800
From: Peter Wemm <peter@jhome.DIALix.COM>
Sender: owner-cvs-sys@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>Bill Fenner wrote:
>> 
>> Well, to use a mechanism that was originally intended to allow for multiple
>> subnets on the same interface to instead give yourself several addresses
>> on the same subnet is also a gross hack.  Need gross hacks to support gross
>> hacks, or a new cleanly architected mechanism for multiple IP addresses
>> on the same subnet.
>> 
>
>True, but a *lot* of ppl (especially) ISP's are using this code that way.
>I just want to make sure nothing breaks. I just committed a patch yesterday
>solbing a problem with cklnt_broadcast() RPC broadcasts. Perhaps I should
>redo that one to disallow broadcasts to those ip numbers with an all
>one netmask ;-().
>
>-Guido

Had anybody looked at how hard it would be to add support for having a single
parameter on each interface to allow a *range* of IP addresses to be responded
to, rather than having a bunch of aliases used in a way that was never
intended?

Perhaps I'm dreaming, but i'd *love* to be able to do something like this:

 ifconfig ed0 inet 192.203.228.2 range 192.9.200.6:192.9.200.30 .... etc


Cheers,
-Peter