Steven Stallion writes: > James Carlson wrote: > > I think that's a pretty reasonable alternative. I still think fixing > > the bug would be nice to do, but "not worth the bother and risk" is a > > valid answer. > > > > Fair enough. > > IMHO, at the very least, it would be nice to see a warning message > either via cmn_err in ip or stderr in ifconfig. I definitely understand > the impact of 'fixing' the problem and the headache that would entail, > but at least a warning message would a) flag that this is a known issue, > and b) hopefully reduce a little confusion :)
I don't think I understand that. In order to issue the warning message, we would have to detect the case in which someone is setting a destination address, but should not be doing so. If we know enough about the exact case in which this occurs, why wouldn't we just return an error and prohibit the action instead of emitting a warning message? The answer has to be that we don't know the difference between the cases where it happens and it's wrong and those where it's actually right. If we emit a warning message if the command is used _properly_, wouldn't that just introduce a new bug? (And likely also customer calls from people baffled at what's broken ... ?) -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
