Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 17 Dec 1997 23:30:21 +0000
From:      Brian Somers <brian@awfulhak.org>
To:        Archie Cobbs <archie@whistle.com>
Cc:        grog@lemis.com (Greg Lehey), dennis@etinc.com, hackers@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: ifconfig reports bogus netmask 
Message-ID:  <199712172330.XAA08835@awfulhak.demon.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 16 Dec 1997 18:21:38 PST." <199712170221.SAA17619@bubba.whistle.com> 

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 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.

Has this always been like this ?  I would *expect* the netmask to 
control who's on the other side, so an interface with

  inet 10.0.2.1 --> 10.0.1.1 netmask 0xffffff00

should create a route with

  10.0.1/24 10.0.2.1 UH ..... tun0

This clearly isn't the case - the mask is lost when the route is 
created at SIOCAIFADDR time.

This, IMHO is wrong.  ioctl(SIOCAIFADDR) should provide RTA_NETMASK 
as a part of rtm_addrs !

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

-- 
Brian <brian@Awfulhak.org>, <brian@FreeBSD.org>, <brian@OpenBSD.org>
      <http://www.Awfulhak.org>;
Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour....





Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199712172330.XAA08835>