Subject: Re: Why is ifconfig.ae0 better than hostname.ae0?
To: Ted Lemon <>
From: Dave Burgess <>
List: current-users
Date: 04/13/1997 20:09:34
> > Add aliases and I'd be happy.  I'd rather not see this functionality
> > added to the rc.conf file.  It is 'C:\WINDOWS\WIN.INI' enough that 
> > anyone can use it.  Adding additional complexity would only muddy a
> > clean, simple interface.
> I'm not sure I understand.   What's the complication in adding the
> ability to set the default route, hostname, and the like?   To me this
> seems pretty simple and pretty useful - I'd very much like it if as
> much information as possible about the system configuration were in a
> single place.

The ifconfig.XXX file makes sense to me.  All of the things for that
interface in one place.

The *.conf files make sense to me.  All of the values for the scripts in
one place.

Putting these values and options for a complex set of ifconfig's into the
netstart.conf file means we add a level of indirection that doesn't
(necassarily) gain us anything, and makes a file with (primarily)
boolean choices into a more complex beast than we need.

Other considerations start to pop up as well.  As the system gets more
complex (a couple of network interfaces, a firewall, a half dozen PPP
sessions, etc.) leaving that stuff in the ifconfig.XXX file
compartmentalizes it.  Trying to add everything into the netstart.conf
file would just complicate the file.

I'm not hard over one way or the other about putting simple stuff (the 
default route is a good example) into the netstart.conf.  It just seems
like it would be an easy step from there to some overzealous coder (lord
knows we don't know any of THOSE) stuffing the file full of stuff you'd
need a Doctorate to understand.

The place where it starts to get complex is places like here, where
every one of my interfaces as it's own hostname.  Which one goes in the
netstart.conf?  All of them?  In order to match up that functionality in
the conf file, it will end up being a complex set of interface
instructions, which could just as easily be handled in third normal form
by the ifconfig.XXX file, rather than the first normal form that the
*.conf files seem to have now.

Like I said, I'm not hard over about it one way or another.  I'm just
not convinced it is worth having the capability in two places....

Dave Burgess  (The man of a thousand E-Mail addresses)
*bsd FAQ Maintainer / SysAdmin for the NetBSD system in my spare bedroom
"Just because something is stupid doesn't mean there isn't someone that 
doesn't want to do it...."