On 28 Mar 2000, david parsons wrote:
> There's certainly nothing wrong with writing some all-singing
> all-dancing (just where did that expression come from?) code to deal
> with proprietary ip extensions in the Linux kernel, but ifconfig,
> route, and the rest of the BSD networking suite deal with the
> network configuration that 99% of the network attached machines out
> there have.
The 'proprietary extentions' match the structure and functionality found
elsewhere on quite a few other systems. Linux has skb, BSD has...they both
do sockets.
> Okay. Lets try this on one of my FreeBSD servers...
[...]
> That's three strikes. I guess I could telnet to one of my cisco
> routers and try it there, but vi doesn't run on IOS, so what's the
> point?
I bet the Mandrake admin tool doesn't run on any of those either. And I
don't use vi, so what's the point.
> Mastodon's admintool allows me to manipulate netmasks via cidr's,
> but it sensibly writes the device configuration out in a script
> that can be used to bring the device up by a combination of
> ifconfig and route.
Two tools, one tool. Two commands, one command.
> And I'm just waiting for the inevitable ``must tweak a magic variable
> before the zero subnet is usable'' patch.
I'm sure the sacasm can be left out =) iproute2 makes things easier, more
simple, and less [user] error prone.
> ____
> david parsons \bi/ FreeBSD isn't any better about ifconfig, because it
> \/ also pastes in routes without a by your leave.
Well, take it or leave it. It's been in the kernel for a while and argued
to death. :)
Please take this to private email if you'd like to continue.
-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 - 21:00:24 EST