From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 13 17:15:18 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37F4316A400 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2007 17:15:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fcash@ocis.net) Received: from smtp.sd73.bc.ca (smtp.sd73.bc.ca [142.24.13.140]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20AE213C478 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2007 17:15:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fcash@ocis.net) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.sd73.bc.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F99C1A000B14 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:15:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at smtp.sd73.bc.ca Received: from smtp.sd73.bc.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.sd73.bc.ca [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id FNhembC+jdGx for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:15:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from coal (s10.sbo [192.168.0.10]) by smtp.sd73.bc.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 251411A000B0B for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:15:05 -0800 (PST) From: Freddie Cash To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:15:04 -0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 References: <200702131038.l1DAcK4k043675@lurza.secnetix.de> In-Reply-To: <200702131038.l1DAcK4k043675@lurza.secnetix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200702130915.04257.fcash@ocis.net> Subject: Re: Desired behaviour of "ifconfig -alias" X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 17:15:18 -0000 On Tuesday 13 February 2007 02:38 am, Oliver Fromme wrote: > JoaoBR wrote: > > Oliver Fromme wrote: > > > No, not at all. As soon as you use the terms "primary IP > > > address" and "secondary IP addresses", you imply that they > > > are not equal. But they are equal. It's just a list of > > > IP addresses assigned to an interface which happens to have > > > a certain order. > > > > nobody claims that there is an master-slave order or something, > > alias is the secondary in order of time, but not in value, I do not > > even understand why you talking so much about this, the point is > > more than clear > > No, it doesn't seem to be clear to you. > > As soon as you use the terms "primary" and "secondary", > you are implying a certain order in the meaning of the > IP addresses. But as far as the ifconfig(8) tool is > concerned, there is no order, no matter ow you would > interpret it. In theory, ifconfig could print the IP > addresses for an interface in random order, and each > time in a different order. Which of them would you > call "primary" then? Which of them would be "aliases"? For a set of IPs in the same subnet on the same interface, wouldn't the primary IP be the one with the proper netmask, and all IPs with netmasks of /32 be secondary? In that situation, wouldn't deleting the primary IP cause connection issues for the rest of the IPs? For a set of IPs in separate subnets, each with their own non-/32 netmasks, there wouldn't really be a distinction between primary / secondary. -- Freddie Cash fcash@ocis.net