Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:22:01 -0800 From: Freddie Cash <fcash@ocis.net> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Desired behaviour of "ifconfig -alias" Message-ID: <200702130922.01746.fcash@ocis.net> In-Reply-To: <200702130757.l1D7vPnP025671@lurza.secnetix.de> References: <200702130757.l1D7vPnP025671@lurza.secnetix.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday 12 February 2007 11:57 pm, Oliver Fromme wrote: > Kevin Way wrote: > > Oliver Fromme wrote: > > > But you called it "confusing". That's just your personal > > > perception. It doesn't mean it is confusing to everybody. > > > > If asked what -alias does, would you really reply "it removes the > > primary IP, > > while leaving the alias?" Be honest here. > > No, I wouldn't answer that, because there is no such thing > as a primary IP. All IPs on an interface are equal. The > term alias exists only for historical reasons, and it's > clearly becoming obsolete. > > If asked what "-alias" does, I would reply that it is an > alias for "delete" or "remove", which removes an IP address > from an interface. According to the docs, the IP address > to be removed must be specified. The docs don't mention > what happens if none is specified, so the behaviour is > undefined and should not be relied on. It just happens [insert tongue into cheek] Hmmm, so if the behaviour is undefined, and should not be relied upon, why is everyone arguing to keep it as they rely upon it? :) If no one should be relying upon this undefined behaviour, then why not fix it and make it reliable? -- Freddie Cash fcash@ocis.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200702130922.01746.fcash>