I hate to report an email, but after being laughed at by both Linux and
Windows users, I'm kinda concerne at the lack of response to my originals
... is this truly the desired behaviour? And, if so ... can someone put
some sort of warning/notice about it in the man page(s)?
=====
I just made one of my 4.x remote servers inaccessible and just tested it on my
5.x laptop, and it does the same thing ... not sure if this is considered a
'desirable' effect, or a but ... but ... 'ifconfig <device>
-alias' will wipe
out all IPs on the device:
mobile# ifconfig -a
lo0: flags=8049<UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 16384
inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 0xff000000 rl0:
flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
options=8<VLAN_MTU>
inet 192.168.0.5 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.0.255
ether 00:0d:88:22:78:e4
media: Ethernet 10baseT/UTP
status: active
mobile# ifconfig rl0 -alias
mobile# ifconfig -a
lo0: flags=8049<UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 16384
inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 0xff000000 rl0:
flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
options=8<VLAN_MTU>
ether 00:0d:88:22:78:e4
media: Ethernet 10baseT/UTP
status: active
I was running a script that happened to pick up a 'zero length' IP (and
I
hadn't properly tested for it), so erased all the IPs configured on that
device, instead of generating an error ...
Checking the man page, if this *is* desired effect, a bit of a warning might be
in order:
" -alias Remove the network address specified. This would be used if
you incorrectly specified an alias, or it was no longer needed.
If you have incorrectly set an NS address having the side
effect of specifying the host portion, removing all NS
addresses will allow you to respecify the host portion."
"Remove the network address specified.", to me, means that if one
isn't
specified, nothing should/would happen :(
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
Garance A Drosihn
2004-Nov-06 21:16 UTC
'ifconfig fxp0 -alias' wipes out all IPs on device
At 1:02 AM -0400 11/7/04, Marc G. Fournier wrote:>I hate to report an email, but after being laughed at by both >Linux and Windows users, I'm kinda concerned at the lack of >response to my originals ... is this truly the desired behaviour? >And, if so ... can someone put some sort of warning/notice about >it in the man page(s)?I imagine you received no response simply because several of the main developers have been swamped trying to finish off 5.3. I remember seeing your earlier report, but I don't remember which mailing list it was sent to. I'll respond enough to say that the behavior you saw seems undesirable to me. But I'm not a networking guy, so that doesn't mean much... -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu