From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 13 19:10:22 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 47BB116A401 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2007 19:10:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from hausen@punkt.de) Received: from kagate.punkt.de (kagate.punkt.de [217.29.33.131]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D533413C46B for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2007 19:10:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from hausen@punkt.de) Received: from hugo10.ka.punkt.de (hugo10.ka.punkt.de [10.0.0.110]) by kagate1.punkt.de with ESMTP id l1DJAKjp001447 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2007 20:10:20 +0100 (CET) Received: from hugo10.ka.punkt.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hugo10.ka.punkt.de (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l1DJAJa9024428 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2007 20:10:20 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ry93@hugo10.ka.punkt.de) Received: (from ry93@localhost) by hugo10.ka.punkt.de (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id l1DJAJhJ024427 for freebsd-stable@freebsd.org; Tue, 13 Feb 2007 20:10:19 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ry93) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 20:10:19 +0100 From: "Patrick M. Hausen" To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20070213191019.GA24006@hugo10.ka.punkt.de> References: <200702130915.04257.fcash@ocis.net> <200702131837.l1DIbHJW010476@lurza.secnetix.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <200702131837.l1DIbHJW010476@lurza.secnetix.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.10i 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 19:10:22 -0000 Hi! On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 07:37:17PM +0100, Oliver Fromme wrote: > Freddie Cash wrote: > > 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? > > That's historic. :-) Old versions of FreeBSD indeed > required the netmask of the "aliases" to be /32 in that > case. But it's no longer the case. WTF? Er, sorry, what did I miss? This is complete news to me and I'm really surprised. I had that same thought as Freddie had when I read this thread, but did not find the time to answer until today. Was there a HEADS UP or something? > > In that situation, wouldn't deleting the primary IP > > cause connection issues for the rest of the IPs? > > No. I can delete _any_ of the above IP addresses, and the > others would still work perfectly fine. I already did > things like that (on a different machine). _If_ they all share the same netmask when they are part of the same prefix. As much as I appreciate the change, this is a big POLA violation. I considered the "netmask 0xffffffff" cast in concrete until now. Thanks for clarifying. Patrick -- punkt.de GmbH * Vorholzstr. 25 * 76137 Karlsruhe Tel. 0721 9109 0 * Fax 0721 9109 100 info@punkt.de http://www.punkt.de Gf: Jürgen Egeling AG Mannheim 108285