Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 01:35:35 +0000 From: "Bruce M. Simpson" <bms@FreeBSD.org> To: Ian Smith <smithi@nimnet.asn.au> Cc: Kevin Way <kevin@insidesystems.net>, Jeremy Chadwick <koitsu@freebsd.org>, Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Desired behaviour of "ifconfig -alias" Message-ID: <45CE72E7.5030409@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.1070210153734.1793A-100000@gaia.nimnet.asn.au> References: <Pine.BSF.3.96.1070210153734.1793A-100000@gaia.nimnet.asn.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ian Smith wrote: > Does not 'remove the network address specified' imply that this should > fail if a) there is no network address specified or b) the address that > is specified is not an existing alias address for the interface? > I tend towards disallowing -alias without argument for reasons of consistency and for the reasons of preventing foot-shooting as you describe. This is not the first time we've run into problems with ifconfig(8) arguments. > Secondly, pardon my ignorance, but what does 'NS' refer to here? That > string / term occurs nowhere else in ifconfig(8). > Old Xerox comms protocols. > Perhaps I'm missing a valid (and used) usage of -alias with no address? > I touched ifconfig.8 last. I'm very happy to check in a patch from somebody. Kind regards, BMS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?45CE72E7.5030409>