Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 09:47:26 +0200 From: Jonathan McKeown <j.mckeown@ru.ac.za> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ifconfig accepting hostname as ipv4 address Message-ID: <201206110947.26772.j.mckeown@ru.ac.za> In-Reply-To: <CAN6yY1u3-N%2B1o9-99JEtkRSJRYMDjWZ0U3WP6nWUuHKT5kkydQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <4FD0C1F4.2060108@FreeBSD.org> <CAGH67wRE=V29ONMNsxsBGSW1jrC1BpJWG=9MMzuOdACiRHQ5AQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAN6yY1u3-N%2B1o9-99JEtkRSJRYMDjWZ0U3WP6nWUuHKT5kkydQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Saturday 09 June 2012 23:29:02 Kevin Oberman wrote: > On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 12:37 AM, Garrett Cooper <yanegomi@gmail.com> wrot= e: > > > > =A0 =A0I agree that it's not the best configuration in the world, as it > > would only work 100% if a machine had proper DNS records or a > > definitive hosts file. > > =A0 =A0There are already enough bugs with static IP configurations and > > hostnames as-is *I'm looking at you mountlate* -- no sense to > > introduce more potentially buggy interoperability that only works in a > > handful of niche cases. > > The idea was that you could enter all of the local interface names in > /etc/hosts and than just put the names into the ifconfig commands. It > was handy for keeping track of what port connected where on systems > that had numerous interfaces, though this was more common in the day > of async serial lines and modems. > > I'll admit that I have mixed feelings about its practicality today, > though it does not hurt anything, as far as I can tell. It works fine as long as the machine has its own address in /etc/hosts - do= es=20 anyone not do that? Also, note that I'm not suggesting adding any functionality at all; just=20 replying to a suggestion that functionality be /removed/ - by pointing out= =20 that we find it useful and would rather not see it go. Jonathan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201206110947.26772.j.mckeown>