Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2025 16:17:43 -0000 (UTC) From: "Peter 'PMc' Much" <pmc@citylink.dinoex.sub.org> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: wg ifconfing control Message-ID: <slrnvq1r17.1dil.pmc@disp.intra.daemon.contact> References: <CA%2BcSnN1UYpecBV145FAkdySM9otr%2BOPTfaWL6PUfj14VEinGVQ@mail.gmail.com> <202501230824.50N8O8hx008288@critter.freebsd.dk> <20250123090603.GC1358@memo2.memo.frmug.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On 2025-01-23, Bertrand Petit <freebsd-hackers@phoe.frmug.org> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 08:24:08AM +0000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >> >> Isn't that program already horrible and complex enough, in terms >> of source code, manual page and command line options ? Thanks for speaking it out. I already moved all my bridges and guests and virtuals to netgraph, where I can find them again. It's much nicer to have a separate plane of existance where one can put things together independent from the ifconfig moloch. > And buggy, see [1]. Reported Oct. 2021 and still present. Ups, is that a bug? I got used to the scans sometimes either returning nothing or not returning at all. The link itself now functioning, I thought this an acceptable tradeoff. cheerio, PMchome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?slrnvq1r17.1dil.pmc>