DragonFly users List (threaded) for 2005-08
Re: ifconfig(8) syntax intuitiveness
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
| On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 04:39:38PM +0200, Thomas E. Spanjaard wrote:
|>Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
|>~ > It's not that easy. This has nothing to do with the interface, but
|>| restriction from the routing stack. Once that restriction goes away,
|>| there's no reason why aliases wouldn't allow it too.
|>That's true, this point isn't exactly an ifconfig issue. However, is
|>there any objection against changing the behaviour of the routing stack
|>to what NetBSD does in this specific case?
| What does NetBSD do in such a situation?
It adds the address and netmask to the interface, and I'm not sure but I
believe it updates the reference count. See sys/net/route.c, in rt_alloc1().
|>| You delete the route.
|>Not if you remove an alias for a subnet already assigned to that
|>interface, then you just remove the alias address, but the route stays
|>(you still have an IP in that subnet assigned to that interface etc).
| You still delete a route, the interface route for the alias address.
You actually remove the address from the interface, resulting in the
interface route getting removed :P. I think you can confuse this some
-- Thomas E. Spanjaard
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----