Re: ifconfig(8) syntax intuitiveness

[Hiten Pandya <hmp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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

If I am understanding you right, the ability to have two interfaces on the 
same network?  Well that's possible with minor amount of code changing by 
use of Itojun's changes in KAME and NetBSD.

I have not done a port of it for the same reason that you outline.  It is 
vital that Jeff finishes his work on parallel routing without any hiccups 
before I start medeling in that part of the kernel.

				Hiten Pandya
				hmp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx