Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 18:21:38 -0800 (PST) From: Archie Cobbs <archie@whistle.com> To: grog@lemis.com (Greg Lehey) Cc: dennis@etinc.com, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ifconfig reports bogus netmask Message-ID: <199712170221.SAA17619@bubba.whistle.com> In-Reply-To: <19971217085945.37164@lemis.com> from Greg Lehey at "Dec 17, 97 08:59:45 am"
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. -Archie ___________________________________________________________________________ Archie Cobbs * Whistle Communications, Inc. * http://www.whistle.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199712170221.SAA17619>