From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Dec 16 18:22:45 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA25721
          for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 18:22:45 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers)
Received: from whistle.com (s205m131.whistle.com [207.76.205.131])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA25715
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 18:22:30 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from archie@whistle.com)
Received: (from smap@localhost) by whistle.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id SAA04284; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 18:21:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bubba.whistle.com(207.76.205.7) by whistle.com via smap (V1.3)
	id sma004282; Tue Dec 16 18:21:38 1997
Received: (from archie@localhost) by bubba.whistle.com (8.8.7/8.6.12) id SAA17619; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 18:21:38 -0800 (PST)
From: Archie Cobbs <archie@whistle.com>
Message-Id: <199712170221.SAA17619@bubba.whistle.com>
Subject: Re: ifconfig reports bogus netmask
In-Reply-To: <19971217085945.37164@lemis.com> from Greg Lehey at "Dec 17, 97 08:59:45 am"
To: grog@lemis.com (Greg Lehey)
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 18:21:38 -0800 (PST)
Cc: dennis@etinc.com, hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL31 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

Greg Lehey writes:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 1997 at 10:39:08AM -0500, dennis wrote:
> >
> > Is there any chance of this getting fixed? Its been broken forever. I'm
> > talking about PTP interfaces, where the routes are inherently host
> > mask routes. ifconfig reports the natural mask or whatever you give
> > it....and its rather confusing trying to explain to the woodchucks that
> > its wrong.
> 
> Well, ifconfig reports the net mask that is set.  And yes, it's
> inappropriate for "real" point-to-point interfaces.  But it's not the
> reporting that's wrong, it's the setting.  Just set all ones when
> setting the interface, and you'll be OK.
> 
> I suppose I should mention that there's a sizeable minority who think
> this is the way the net mask *should* be.  Maybe one of them will
> explain, I keep forgetting.

I agree with Dennis..

The bottom line is that no matter what you set the netmask to,
it has absolutely no effect on anything.

So unless the current behavior is going to be changed, the netmask
should be removed from the display (at least) because it serves only
to confuse people.

-Archie

___________________________________________________________________________
Archie Cobbs   *   Whistle Communications, Inc.  *   http://www.whistle.com