Hello!
And hello again!
> Yes. It didn't in 2.0.
Soooory, it did. This behavior is copied from there. :-)
You are mistaken. I already quoted you the source.
In case you do not believe in source reading I can demo as well.
2.4:
# ifconfig lo netmask 255.254.0.0 10.0.0.150
# ifconfig lo
lo Link encap:Local Loopback
inet addr:10.0.0.150 Mask:255.0.0.0
[2.4.6, net-tools 1.60]
2.0:
# ifconfig lo netmask 255.254.0.0 10.0.0.150
# ifconfig lo
lo Link encap:Local Loopback
inet addr:10.0.0.150 Bcast:127.255.255.255 Mask:255.254.0.0
[2.0.34, net-tools 1.33]
As you see, the behaviour where setting the address kills
the already set netmask is new.
> Yes. I liked such logic thirty years ago. That is Unix.
:-) Seems, thirty years ago there were not only Internet but Unix too.
Yes, rounded to a nice number. I suppose we started using Unix
26 or 27 years ago or so.
BTW I did not hear about any kind of Unix, which forgets
to set a valid mask on newly selected address.
Linux 2.0, when there already is a nonzero mask.
A zero mask is replaced by a default:
2.0:
# ifconfig lo netmask 0.0.0.0 10.0.0.150
# ifconfig lo
lo Link encap:Local Loopback
inet addr:10.0.0.150 Bcast:127.255.255.255 Mask:255.0.0.0
...
Andries
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 31 2001 - 21:00:24 EST