Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:03:33 +0930 From: "Thyer, Matthew" <Matthew.Thyer@dsto.defence.gov.au> To: "'Brooks Davis'" <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net>, Mark Johnston <mjohnston@skyweb.ca> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: RE: cvs-src summary for June 21 - 28 Message-ID: <DFB8CBBEF9C9A0479F92BCC2F2AEF5FF2956B7@ednex503.dsto.defence.gov.au>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> There's a small error in this pat of the summary. It is not the case > that stf interfaces are created instead of stf0 interfaces in all cases. > Here's a table showing the changes. > > Command DEV Version > ifconfig stf stf0 old > ifconfig stf0 stf0 old > ifconfig 6to4 <fail> old > ifconfig stf stf new > ifconfig stf0 stf0 new > ifconfig 6to4 6to4 new Why is there a need to break backward compatibility? Why cannot "ifconfig stf" result in "stf0" being printed and created? Does it make sense to have a device created called "stf", and if so why wasn't this required in the old implementation ?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?DFB8CBBEF9C9A0479F92BCC2F2AEF5FF2956B7>