On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 12:53:48PM +0200, Martin Husemann wrote:
> > Furthermore, would it be possible to just have something like ifconfig
> > parentif or just ifconfig parent?
> 
> I like "ifconfig parent".
> You could consider the members of a bridge(4) as child interfaces too,

Of course. bridge(4) only came to mind after I had sent the message.

It would be nice to see pppoe(4) parent interfaces in ifconfig. Taking this
a step further, it would be even nicer to see the detailed status of, for
example, pppoe(4) directly in ifconfig like you can see now with pppoectl -d:

pppoe0: state = session
        Session ID: 0x[...]
        PADI retries: 0
        PADR retries: 0

Thus, fictional ifconfig output:

pppoe0: flags=8851<UP,POINTOPOINT,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1492
        parent: sip1
        state: session sessionid: 0x... padi: 0 padr: 0
        [...]
vlan1: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
        parent: sip0
        vlan: 1
        [...]

Or something similiar. The logical conclusion could be that all functionality
of pppoectl (brconfig, ...) should be in ifconfig, since we have no vlanctl
either? OTOH, maybe ifconfig should be for device-independent configs only,
meaning only parents would be configured this way and anything more specific
should be in separate commands. But then we would need to shift vlan config
into a separate vlanctl to be consistent?

Just giving some thoughts since my internal consistency alert keeps nagging :(

Regards,

ND