Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 22:55:29 +0800 From: Peter Wemm <peter@jhome.DIALix.COM> To: guido@gvr.win.tue.nl (Guido van Rooij) Cc: fenner@parc.xerox.com (Bill Fenner), fenner@freefall.freebsd.org, CVS-committers@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-all@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-sys@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet in.c Message-ID: <199603191455.WAA29799@jhome.DIALix.COM> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 18 Mar 1996 06:41:22 %2B0100." <199603180541.GAA22370@gvr.win.tue.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>Bill Fenner wrote: >> >> Well, to use a mechanism that was originally intended to allow for multiple >> subnets on the same interface to instead give yourself several addresses >> on the same subnet is also a gross hack. Need gross hacks to support gross >> hacks, or a new cleanly architected mechanism for multiple IP addresses >> on the same subnet. >> > >True, but a *lot* of ppl (especially) ISP's are using this code that way. >I just want to make sure nothing breaks. I just committed a patch yesterday >solbing a problem with cklnt_broadcast() RPC broadcasts. Perhaps I should >redo that one to disallow broadcasts to those ip numbers with an all >one netmask ;-(). > >-Guido Had anybody looked at how hard it would be to add support for having a single parameter on each interface to allow a *range* of IP addresses to be responded to, rather than having a bunch of aliases used in a way that was never intended? Perhaps I'm dreaming, but i'd *love* to be able to do something like this: ifconfig ed0 inet 192.203.228.2 range 192.9.200.6:192.9.200.30 .... etc Cheers, -Peter
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199603191455.WAA29799>