From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Aug 28 17:51:49 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) id RAA03051 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 28 Aug 1995 17:51:49 -0700 Received: from hutcs.cs.hut.fi (hutcs.cs.hut.fi [130.233.192.2]) by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) with SMTP id RAA03045 for ; Mon, 28 Aug 1995 17:51:40 -0700 Received: from shadows.cs.hut.fi by hutcs.cs.hut.fi with SMTP id AA07304 (5.65c8/HUTCS-S 1.4 for ); Tue, 29 Aug 1995 03:51:29 +0300 Received: (hsu@localhost) by shadows.cs.hut.fi (8.6.10/8.6.10) id DAA07290; Tue, 29 Aug 1995 03:51:30 +0300 Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 03:51:30 +0300 Message-Id: <199508290051.DAA07290@shadows.cs.hut.fi> From: Heikki Suonsivu To: dennis@et.htp.com (dennis) Cc: freebsd-hackers@freefall.FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: dennis@et.htp.com's message of 28 Aug 1995 19:53:16 +0300 Subject: Re: alias ( secondary IP ) for Ethernet Ifaces in FreeBSD Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Otaniemi, Finland Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >What's the summary here? Is someone upset about a gated bug, a >FreeBSD bug or a little of both? Background details please! Thanks! IP aliasing doesn't seem to work when gated is running. Mr Corston complained that he had sent a bug report to the FreeBSD people and got no If IP aliasing here means two separate networks behind the same interface, it seems to work for us (all FreeBSD (current), OSFP, gated (latest alpha - 1, I think)): sysconfig: ifconfig_ed4="inet 194.100.8.254 netmask 255.255.255.0 alias 194.100.9.254 netmask 255.255.255.0" rc.local: ifconfig ed4 alias 194.100.9.254 netmask 255.255.255.0 I don't know why the first alias doesn't get through, but the second one seems to find its way to gated (I think I PR'd this). The both networks 194.100.8 and 194.100.9 are advertised. response and wasn't happy. I told him that I think that the problem has more to do with gateD than FreeBSD, and that it should not be the responsibility of an O/S to conform to an Application. I've talked to some of the Operating systems should converge towards common standards, so that applications no more need to be ported. That is what I have thought to be one of the primary advantages of UNIX, and that is what I have thought what operating systems are all about. If applications are doing things too OS specific, it almost always seems to be interface problem (lack of common interface, usually). But I don't know if this is true with routing code, and would like to see examples how gated is doing things wrong and how it really should do them. -- Heikki Suonsivu, T{ysikuu 10 C 83/02210 Espoo/FINLAND, hsu@cs.hut.fi home +358-0-8031121 work -4513377 fax -4555276 riippu SN