Blu3Viper wrote:
>
> On 28 Mar 2000, david parsons wrote:
> > ># 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
> >
> > Why are you talking about eth1 here? I don't see what your eth1
> > (with the wonderfully not-like-any-other-unix ip command) has to
> > do with his lo:7 problem.
>
> Because I happen to have an existing interface right at hand with all those
> pretty things on it. 'ip' is extremely like Cisco's ip command which is
> heavily spread across the world. Commonality :)
On Cisco routers, yes, which are most certainly NOT Unix machines.
ifconfig and route, on the other hand, are pretty common; that's
why I'm mot, umm, ``upgrading'' my network utilities to use ip --
I like to not have to have my brain hurt too much when switching
from one Unix box to another.
> > david parsons \bi/ Who'd also like it if networking didn't magically
> > \/ create routes when I ifconfig up an interface.
> I like it when it does it automatically,
Most Linices *do* do it automatically from within their respective
rc.network scripts, and people have mentioned places where it's
useful to bring up an interface but not attach any routes to it
when they're doing something fancier than simply attaching a
workstation to a network.
____
david parsons \bi/ I think I prefer Linux to be a Unix clone instead
\/ of an IOS clone.
-
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