On Tue, 28 Mar 2000, david parsons wrote:
> On Cisco routers, yes, which are most certainly NOT Unix machines.
No, they aren't. But ifconfig and route simply can't deal with the immense
amount of network capabilities we have now.
> ifconfig and route, on the other hand, are pretty common; that's
> why I'm mot, umm, ``upgrading'' my network utilities to use ip --
> I like to not have to have my brain hurt too much when switching
> from one Unix box to another.
It won't hurt much, it actually gets easier IMO :)
Instead of: ifconfig eth0 1.2.3.4 netmask 5.6.7.8 broadcast a.b.c.d ...
it becomes: ip a a 1.2.3.4/nn brd + dev eth0
The CIDR usage is great, complemented with the calculated broadcast.
> Most Linices *do* do it automatically from within their respective
> rc.network scripts, and people have mentioned places where it's
> useful to bring up an interface but not attach any routes to it
> when they're doing something fancier than simply attaching a
> workstation to a network.
I used to have reasons not to add routes and then I learned how to do it
better. The routing really does belong there.
> david parsons \bi/ I think I prefer Linux to be a Unix clone instead
> \/ of an IOS clone.
And a good bit of the current NET4 code is modelled after a lot of IOS.
-d
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 31 2000 - 21:00:23 EST