From owner-freebsd-stable Tue May 7 10:47:55 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from laptop.tenebras.com (laptop.tenebras.com [66.92.188.18]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9CAD937B400 for ; Tue, 7 May 2002 10:47:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 39741 invoked from network); 7 May 2002 17:47:47 -0000 Received: from sapphire.tenebras.com (HELO tenebras.com) (66.92.188.241) by 0 with SMTP; 7 May 2002 17:47:47 -0000 Message-ID: <3CD81342.6090009@tenebras.com> Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 10:47:46 -0700 From: Michael Sierchio Reply-To: kudzu@tenebras.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.0rc1) Gecko/20020427 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "R. David Murray" Cc: Ian , Erich Zigler , freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Unable to alias IP's in 4.5 References: <20020507133834.I31920-100000@twirl.bitdance.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG R. David Murray wrote: > On Mon, 6 May 2002, Ian wrote: > >>What changed is that the code now enforces that you do it the right way, >>which is to use 255.255.255.255 as the netmask for the alias IPs. That is, >>use the normal/proper netmask for the primary IP for that NIC, then use >>255.255.255.255 for any alias IPs on the same subnet for that NIC. > > > That's rather counter-intuitive. Is that behavior mandated by > some standard or other? Some things appear counter-intuitive due to poor design, while others do because we're ignorant ;-) There are possible side effects to IP aliases in routing tables and arp handling -- using a netmask of 0xffffffff was always the proper approach, and now it is enforced. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message