Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2011 20:48:37 -0400 From: "J. Hellenthal" <jhell@DataIX.net> To: dieterbsd@engineer.com Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ifconfig output: ipv4 netmask format Message-ID: <20110410004837.GB95165@DataIX.net> In-Reply-To: <8CDC4EC0DEBF3BD-18FC-3276@web-mmc-m02.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CDC4EC0DEBF3BD-18FC-3276@web-mmc-m02.sysops.aol.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--bCsyhTFzCvuiizWE Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 12:41:05PM -0400, dieterbsd@engineer.com wrote: >Paul Schenkeveld writes: >>Although non-contiguous netmasks are not legal anymore in IPv4, our >>ifconfig still allows to do something like: >> >> # ifconfig em0 inet 10.0.5.2 netmask 255.0.255.0 >> # ifconfig em0 >> em0: flags=3D8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> metric 0 >mtu 1500 >options=3D219b<RXCSUM,TXCSUM,VLAN_MTU,VLAN_HWTAGGING,VLAN_HWCSUM,TSO4,WOL_M >AGIC> >> ether xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx >> inet 10.0.5.2 netmask 0xff00ff00 broadcast 10.255.5.255 >> media: Ethernet autoselect (1000baseT <full-duplex>) >> status: active > >If this is no longer legal, should ifconfig issue a warning? > >J. Hellenthal writes: > >>This is the year 2011 right ? when are we going to support new users >>rather than supporting old outdated washed up "scripts" ? > >Change for the sake of change is not progress. Perhaps when you get >more experience you will understand the "joy" of spending massive >amounts of time attempting to deal with gratuitious changes. Perhaps making blind assumptions and shouting from an advertisement domain about experience of others might cause some assumptions to be made, but I won't go there with my thoughts of that. Bold moves that aid the user deciphering what they see correctly spurs further community involvement rather than driving them away. Given this is a small change and one that would only play a small role in a similar light, there are much greater issues that surround this and all of them play a part in the final result, not just the "bigger" ones. I know where to find those. Anyway... Thanks for broadening the Service Window with your ``experience'' --=20 J. Hellenthal --bCsyhTFzCvuiizWE Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (FreeBSD) Comment: http://bit.ly/0x89D8547E iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNoP5kAAoJEJBXh4mJ2FR+8oAH/0RUuzJyaD4d/TLE0pqBZ0g4 mngox3XWpzsKjXGKbUVaHlhEopNBqGmTQoergD4saImi6eSOZD1aV4gXMxYPAmvN G1n0DCBSx7GDbJeM6AxZEylOv5QO3YdHmC4U9jXel9YL2Ri4KYtNu5NZlxTdIsHh PkmI14F83guC83tgDTgO0OeIRxzTUkYPk2mjJfJmV6oV8nse6fuAJqF4eSp4DKl+ aetcuTUcCPF4kiMFk7PrVctND7TAwooxObB4i+fpJlr/LdGae7lywLyhfhosH1zZ UJTMkLvH7ysSl2/RLmtier/1rOK4FYnSZv1tvj3tubvaHibykYHqRj9akVDsr8A= =8/Y1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --bCsyhTFzCvuiizWE--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110410004837.GB95165>