[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: ifconfig v2
>> Why? What harm are [noncontiguous netmasks] doing that outweighs
>> (to you) breaking an occasionally useful (if little-used) facility
>> that's been there pretty much since day one?
> No one can agree what they are supposed to mean.
Hm? I thought they meant what contiguous netmasks do:
"on-net" = "dst address & mask == local address & mask" (mutatis
mutandis for "local address" for things like routes). Who thinks they
mean anything else?
> No one knows how to use them.
There's no particular "how" to it; you pass them to ifconfig like any
other mask. "ifconfig le0 100.101.102.103 netmask 255.255.255.216".
> They are undocumented.
Only in the sense that the documentation (mostly) does not explicitly
mention the possibility that the netmask be noncontiguous; you might as
well say that non-octet-boundary netmasks are undocumented. What
descriptions I can find offhand of the semantics of netmasks apply
equally well to contiguous and noncontiguous masks.
> They complicate things like the present case: showing a prefix length
> instead of a netmask.
Given that the code already exists, I'm not convinced removing it is
worth breaking the existing facility.
Not that NetBSD necessarily cares what I think, of course.
/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse%rodents-montreal.org@localhost
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
Main Index |
Thread Index |