On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 11:27:00PM +0400, Paul Fertser wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Andreas, i do not understand the reasoning for l2tp to be higher in
> the list than the link command. I think it's quite common for the more
> experienced "ip" users to use the "l" abbreviation instead of the full
> "link" com
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 23:27:00 +0400
Paul Fertser wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Andreas, i do not understand the reasoning for l2tp to be higher in
> the list than the link command. I think it's quite common for the more
> experienced "ip" users to use the "l" abbreviation instead of the full
> "link" command.
Hi,
Andreas, i do not understand the reasoning for l2tp to be higher in
the list than the link command. I think it's quite common for the more
experienced "ip" users to use the "l" abbreviation instead of the full
"link" command.
Can you please explain why l2tp should be added before link and not
On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 05:12:33 -0500
nick black wrote:
> Package: iproute
> Version: 20120105-1
> Severity: normal
>
> Dear Maintainer,
>
> "ip l" started failing a few weeks ago:
>
> [skynet](0) $ ip -o l
> RTNETLINK answers: No such file or directory
> Error talking to the kernel
> [skynet](1)
Package: iproute
Version: 20120105-1
Severity: normal
Dear Maintainer,
"ip l" started failing a few weeks ago:
[skynet](0) $ ip -o l
RTNETLINK answers: No such file or directory
Error talking to the kernel
[skynet](1) $
oddly enough, "ip link" operates as expected:
[skynet](1) $ ip -o link
1:
5 matches
Mail list logo