Re: ifconfig(8) syntax intuitiveness

[Max Okumoto <okumoto@xxxxxxxx>]

Matthew Dillon wrote:
> :Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> :~ > 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.
> :
> :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?
>
>     No but we need to wait for Jeff to commit his parallel routing 
>     table improvements before we begin messing with the route table.
>     It's very complex code.
>
>     In the case of ifconfig aliases, I agree completely that we should
>     allow netmask's other then 255.255.255.255.  I would also like to have
>     that capability for e.g. parallel routing.  The route table was never
>     designed for duplicate masks so it won't be a trivial matter.
>
> 						-Matt

Has anyone looked at the recent work on ifconfig that Sam Leffler
is doing?  I thought he was cleaning up alot of the code in there.

			Max Okumoto