"A month of sundays ago Blu3Viper wrote:"
> On Tue, 28 Mar 2000, Peter T. Breuer wrote:
> > address up when I want one. I most definitely DON'T want the machine to
> > put a network up for me when I don't say so. The current behaviour is
> > broken in several respects:
>
> I.e. probably incorrect networking.
>
> > 1) ifconfig lo:7 down downs lo
> > 2) ifconfig lo up ups lo:7
> > 3) routes and arp are changed when I put an alias up on lo:7 when I don't
> > want this to be anything else but a dummy, visible only locally
>
> your net tools are old and need updated.
Mmm .. I am talking about a debian potato here. The tools are not older
than the kernel in question (2.2.10). I'll check if you like:
lm001:/usr/oboe/ptb% dpkg -l netbase
Desired=Unknown/Install/Remove/Purge
| Status=Not/Installed/Config-files/Unpacked/Failed-config/Half-installed
|/ Err?=(none)/Hold/Reinst-required/X=both-problems (Status,Err: uppercase=bad)
||/ Name Version Description
+++-===============-==============-============================================
ii netbase 3.16-7 Basic TCP/IP networking binaries
> there is only one physical device, it is either up or down. the proper way
> to think of the device is this:
That's fine, but I'm not interested in the physical ones. It's the
logical ones that I'm complaining about here.
> # ip a s eth1
> 6: eth1: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast qlen 100
> link/ether 00:a0:cc:54:e1:eb brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
> inet 208.179.68.66/26 brd 208.179.68.127 scope global eth1
> inet 208.179.68.67/26 brd 208.179.68.127 scope global secondary eth1
> ...
>
> there is one physical device that can be up or down and one or more
> addresses associated with it.
It's a very appropriate view. It's close to how NICs actually work.
However, so what? It doesn't have any implications that I can şlainly
see. Are you saying that ifconfig is broken, in that it shouldn't down
the device when you down the alias, and it does? Or are you saying that
ifconfig is right? I believe you are saying that the action of ifconfig
is wrong - it should remove the alias instead of downing the device when
we ask that the alias be downed? But I'm goshed if I can see that you
are saying anything that has a definite consequence for the interface
design.
Peter
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 31 2000 - 21:00:23 EST