From owner-freebsd-stable Sat May 25 21:15:51 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0383037B405 for ; Sat, 25 May 2002 21:15:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 17333 invoked by uid 0); 26 May 2002 04:15:40 -0000 Received: from p50910097.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (HELO mail.gsinet.sittig.org) (80.145.0.151) by mail.gmx.net (mp004-rz3) with SMTP; 26 May 2002 04:15:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 59735 invoked from network); 25 May 2002 19:19:06 -0000 Received: from shell.gsinet.sittig.org (192.168.11.153) by mail.gsinet.sittig.org with SMTP; 25 May 2002 19:19:06 -0000 Received: (from sittig@localhost) by shell.gsinet.sittig.org (8.11.3/8.11.3) id g4PJIwD59720 for stable@freebsd.org; Sat, 25 May 2002 21:18:58 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from sittig) Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 21:18:58 +0200 From: Gerhard Sittig To: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 4.6-PRERELASE fxp alias woes Message-ID: <20020525211858.N1494@shell.gsinet.sittig.org> Mail-Followup-To: stable@freebsd.org References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020513142059.03741410@127.0.0.1> <200205240009.g4O09Kb2081251@wattres.Watt.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200205240009.g4O09Kb2081251@wattres.Watt.COM>; from steve@Watt.COM on Thu, May 23, 2002 at 05:09:20PM -0700 Organization: System Defenestrators Inc. Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 17:09 -0700, Steve Watt wrote: > > In article <5.1.0.14.2.20020513142059.03741410@127.0.0.1> you write: > >network_interfaces="fxp0 lo0" > >ifconfig_fxp0="inet 216.109.194.4 netmask 255.255.255.0" > >ifconfig_fxp0_alias0="inet 216.109.194.8 netmask 255.255.255.0" > > As everyone has pointed out, the kernel is now enforcing netmasks on > same-subnet aliases. > > But I've got a really simple question: Why, if it is so easy to detect > programatically, do we not just *fix* it automagically? Is there *ever* > a case where it is useful to have a same-subnet alias with a different > subnet mask (besides the obvious point of it doesn't work with the > current code). Huh? I trust a computer to detect _that_ there are collisions. But I'd *never* trust the machine to decide _which_ one of multiple parameters is the wrong one. This would be some kind of "no matter what I tell you, do what I mean" or even worse "don't take me too serious, do what you think I meant". This is definitely not the UNIX way. If you wish for this kind of features, don't hesitate to install a different OS on your machine. :> > In other words, is there some useful future behavior that such a change > would make unpleasant/undoable? You seem to miss the point of applying an alias to your NIC which lives in a different network than the primary address. That's when a netmask different from 255.255.255.255 makes perfect sense and actually is required. virtually yours 82D1 9B9C 01DC 4FB4 D7B4 61BE 3F49 4F77 72DE DA76 Gerhard Sittig true | mail -s "get gpg key" Gerhard.Sittig@gmx.net -- If you don't understand or are scared by any of the above ask your parents or an adult to help you. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message