Re: ifconfig(8) syntax intuitiveness

[Joseph Garcia <bsd_usr@xxxxxxxxx>]

Danial Thom wrote:
> --- Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>
> > On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 03:26:17PM +0200, Erik
> > P. Skaalerud wrote:
> >
> > > Joseph Garcia wrote:
> > >
> > > > I was using ifconfig when it occurred to me
> >
> > how non-intuitive it is
> >
> > > > having to use 255.255.255.255 as the netmask
> >
> > when adding an address
> >
> > > > that is on the same subnet as an address
> >
> > already on the interface. For
> >
> > > > example, if you already have 192.168.0.1/24
> >
> > on fxp0, then you should be
> >
> > > > able to add the following address with this
> >
> > command:
> >
> > > > 	ifconfig fxp0 add 192.168.0.2 netmask
> >
> > 255.255.255.0
> >
> > > > instead of:
> > > >
> > > > 	ifconfig fxp0 add 192.168.0.2 netmask
> >
> > 255.255.255.255
> >
> > > I second this. I had problems with this when
> >
> > I first used IP aliasing on 
> >
> > > FreeBSD long time ago because I had the wrong
> >
> > netmask set. (/24 instead 
> >
> > > of /32).
> >
> > It's not that easy. This has nothing to do with
> > the interface, but is a
> > restriction from the routing stack. Once that
> > restriction goes away,
> > there's no reason why aliases wouldn't allow it
> > too.
> >
> >
> > > I second your thoughts about "delete". You
> >
> > don't delete it, you remove it.
> >
> > You delete the route.
> >
> >
> > > I have another suggestion for ifconfig
> >
> > aswell. Show netmaskes in human 
> >
> > > readable format (decimal) instead of HEX. I
> >
> > mean, who really thinks 
> >
> > > about netmasks in HEX formats?
> >
> > Me. Actually, decimal netmasks are *not* human
> > readable, because it is
> > much harder to determine the *binary* affect
> > they have.
> >
> > Joerg
>
>
> My opinion is, if you want to add another syntax,
> fine, but leave the old syntax also, because even
> though it may not seem intuitive, its familiar.
> The same reasoning goes for not changing "grep"
> to "search". Linux changed a lot of the ifconfig
> syntax and its confusing to new users who are
> familiar with something else, and it doesn't
> improve the experience. Better to have one
> arguably wrong syntax that 4 different ones that
> are marginally more correct.
>
> DT

Oh yeah, I definately wouldn't want to remove any of the old syntax 
because of the fact that doing so would most likely break scripts and 
what not. Also, people are used to using them.

Although, it wouldn't hurt to make *remove* the same as *delete* (make 
it a synonym) then maybe have a note in the man page saying that 
alias/-alias and delete are deprecated until people get used to using 
add/remove.

Then again, this actually isn't really a big deal since add/delete is 
okay. I don't mind too much if that was left alone. I only mentioned it 
because I thought it would make the utility more intuitive.

On the other hand, the 255.255.255.255 thing just doesn't seem right. I 
installed OpenBSD 3.8 Beta yesterday just out of curiosity. I was able 
to add two addresses on the same subnet with the following commands:

   ifconfig pcn0 inet 192.168.0.172 netmask 255.255.255.0 alias
   ifconfig pcn0 inet 192.168.0.19  netmask 255.255.255.0 alias

NOTE: OpenBSD doesn't sseem to like *add* instead of *alias*. Also, it 
seems that using *alias* doesn't work before the address family like it 
does in FreeBSD/DragonFlyBSD's ifconfig.

Here's some sample ouput of when I look at that interface afterwards:

   # ifconfig pcn0
   pcn0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
           lladdr 00:0c:29:54:cf:00
           groups: egress
           media: Ethernet autoselect (autoselect)
           inet6 fe80::20c:29ff:fe54:cf00%pcn0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x1
           inet 192.168.0.19 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.0.255
           inet 192.168.0.172 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.0.255

NOTE: Seems like I don't need to type -a to show interface info anymore. 
When did that happen? I actually haven't used OpenBSD since 3.5 and this 
is 3.8 Beta.

Someone mentioned displaying the netmask in decimal form. I thought that 
would be a good idea. It would seem easier to read that way. I tend to 
think of numbers in decimal and not in hexadecimal, but that's just me. 
Although, that doesn't concern me as much as the netmask thing. Then 
again, if you have a funky netmask then maybe reading it in hexadecimal 
would be kinda tedious for those of us that don't naturally read 
hexadecimal.

From reading the other posts in this thread, it seems that we need to 
wait for some commits to occur before this can be looked into since it 
deals with routing code. I didn't realise that this had anything to do 
with routing. Then again, I'm not a programmer. I'm just here to give a 
*user's* perspective of things.

Anyway, it's nice to know that I'm not the only one that thought the 
whole 255.255.255.2555 alias thing was funky.

Cheers,

Joseph Garcia