From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 13 17:22:14 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 B8A1F16A408 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2007 17:22:14 +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 A16FA13C4B9 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2007 17:22:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fcash@ocis.net) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.sd73.bc.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 202051A000B18 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:22:14 -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 MQnT+ZDqS2Sq for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:22:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from coal (s10.sbo [192.168.0.10]) by smtp.sd73.bc.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CD4C1A000B0E for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:22:02 -0800 (PST) From: Freddie Cash To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:22:01 -0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 References: <200702130757.l1D7vPnP025671@lurza.secnetix.de> In-Reply-To: <200702130757.l1D7vPnP025671@lurza.secnetix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200702130922.01746.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 17:22:14 -0000 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