On Fri 11 Jun 2021 at 14:01:02 (+), Kanto Andria wrote:
> First post here on this lists. I know about the the IP set of commands, BUT
> my concern is about the ifconfig one.I have 2 Debian 10 Buster systems and I
> have the same behavior - reading the man page did not give the
Hi Kanto,
On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 02:01:02PM +, Kanto Andria wrote:
> dada@Jradebian:~$ sudo ifconfig enp0s31f6 stats
You just resolved "stats" in DNS and set the IP address of interface
enp0s31f6 to that IP.
> inet 54.36..162.17 netmask 255.0.0.0 broadcast 54.
Hi.
On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 02:01:02PM +, Kanto Andria wrote:
> dada@Jradebian:~$ sudo ifconfig enp0s31f6 stats
There's no "stats" option to ifconfig, at least according to the source
of version 1.60+git20180626.aebd88e.
But what a quick test does show
Hello,
First post here on this lists. I know about the the IP set of commands, BUT my
concern is about the ifconfig one.I have 2 Debian 10 Buster systems and I have
the same behavior - reading the man page did not give the specific options
dada@Jradebian:~$ sudo ifconfig enp0s31f6
*
https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2017/08/msg01613.html
*
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17152738
*
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=274269
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17151922
Since I needed an |ifconfig| with a more BSD-like interface
john doe wrote:
> I would use mapping stanza instead:
>
> http://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/trusty/man5/interfaces.5.html
+1
On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 09:32:31AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 11:20:20PM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> > configured to say office, I want to be able to run my reset bash
> > script as follows:
> >
> > reset eth0=internet
>
> I suggest you choose a different name, as
On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 11:20:20PM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> configured to say office, I want to be able to run my reset bash
> script as follows:
>
> reset eth0=internet
I suggest you choose a different name, as reset(1) is already taken.
If your script is supposed to take two pieces of
> >
> > > I use /etc/network/interfaces ("/e/n/i")
> > >
> > > When I modify /e/n/i , I then run a little "reset" script, like so:
> > >
> > > dev=eth0
> > > ifdown $dev
> > > ifconfig $dev down
&g
When I modify /e/n/i , I then run a little "reset" script, like so:
> >
> > dev=eth0
> > ifdown $dev
> > ifconfig $dev down
> > ifup $dev
> >
> > Here and there I've had problems.
> >
> > Recently I discovered the ip command
, like so:
dev=eth0
ifdown $dev
ifconfig $dev down
ifup $dev
Here and there I've had problems.
Recently I discovered the ip command.
Apparently, after reconfiguring as above, two IP addresses end up
attached to eth0 - one for each (staticly configured in /e/n/i)
ISP network connection.
So
On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 11:52:36AM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
So I change between two internet connections from time to time.
I use /etc/network/interfaces ("/e/n/i")
When I modify /e/n/i , I then run a little "reset" script, like so:
dev=eth0
ifdown $dev
ifconfig $dev
t; > When I modify /e/n/i , I then run a little "reset" script, like so:
> >
> > dev=eth0
> > ifdown $dev
> > ifconfig $dev down
> > ifup $dev
>
> Perhaps, just perhaps you should be doing "ifdown $dev" *before*
> editing your e/n
e "reset" script, like so:
>
> dev=eth0
> ifdown $dev
> ifconfig $dev down
> ifup $dev
Perhaps, just perhaps you should be doing "ifdown $dev" *before*
editing your e/n/i: ifdown may get confused finding parameters
there corresponding to the future, not to the
On Mon 09 Jul 2018 at 11:52:36 (+1000), Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> So I change between two internet connections from time to time.
>
> I use /etc/network/interfaces ("/e/n/i")
>
> When I modify /e/n/i , I then run a little "reset" script, like so:
>
> de
So I change between two internet connections from time to time.
I use /etc/network/interfaces ("/e/n/i")
When I modify /e/n/i , I then run a little "reset" script, like so:
dev=eth0
ifdown $dev
ifconfig $dev down
ifup $dev
Here and there I've had problems.
Recently I
Eike Lantzsch:
Yes, I ask myself why this isn't possible on Linux:
ifconfig enp3s0 inet alias 192.168.12.206 netmask 255.255.255.0
while it is perfectly possible on OpenBSD (with the correct device of
course).
It's possible if you spell it |inet add| instead of |inet alias|. (-:
er,
or Debian's own |ifupdown| via |/etc/network/interfaces|.
Your second point is a conflation of two things. One is right, but the
other is wrong. Here is what actually happens. Starting with this basis:
jdebp % ifconfig lo|head -n 4
loLink encap:Local Loopback
ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
Parsing the interface names out of THAT is significantly harder.
In support of my earlier point that some /other/ people /did/ make
modern |ifconfig| usable in such ways:
JdeBP % ifconfig -l
bge0 bge1 lo0 tun0
JdeBP %
Here's something from a script of
Am 2017-08-22 17:11, schrieb Sven Hartge:
Christian Seiler wrote:
auto eth0
iface eth0 inet static
address 192.168.0.1/24
address 192.168.0.42/24
address 10.5.6.7/8
This will work, and it will assign all IPs to the interface (the first
one being the primary and the source IP of outgoi
Christian Seiler wrote:
> auto eth0
> iface eth0 inet static
> address 192.168.0.1/24
> address 192.168.0.42/24
> address 10.5.6.7/8
> This will work, and it will assign all IPs to the interface (the first
> one being the primary and the source IP of outgoing packets where the
> program do
On Monday 21 August 2017 14:05:48 Christian Seiler wrote:
> On 08/21/2017 07:40 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > I'll have to study up on this "binding" and how its done.
>
> Note that that's something a program can do if it wants to, but not
> something you can generically configure (though individual
On 08/21/2017 07:40 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> I'll have to study up on this "binding" and how its done.
Note that that's something a program can do if it wants to, but not
something you can generically configure (though individual programs
might offer you configuration options for this), and most
ddress 192.168.0.1/24
> >> address 192.168.0.42/24
> >> address 10.5.6.7/8
> >>
> >> This will work, and it will assign all IPs to the interface (the
> >> first one being the primary and the source IP of outgoing packets
> >> where the program doesn
/8
>>
>> This will work, and it will assign all IPs to the interface (the first
>> one being the primary and the source IP of outgoing packets where the
>> program doesn't explicitly bind anything). And "ip a" will show all
>> three addresses, but "ifc
ple IP addresses are assigned to the
> >> same interfaces it only shows the primary address
> >
> > I don't know as to how ifconfig sets it up, but its a piece of cake
> > to edit /etc/network/interfaces to do that. If I bring in a new
> > router, I uncomment t
the primary address
>
> I don't know as to how ifconfig sets it up, but its a piece of cake to
> edit /etc/network/interfaces to do that. If I bring in a new router, I
> uncomment this stanza in the interfaces file:
>
> #auto eth0:1
>
> # to access res
On Monday, 21 August 2017 15:08:11 -04 Christian Seiler wrote:
> Am 2017-08-21 14:50, schrieb Greg Wooledge:
> > [missing features in ifconfig]
> > (Like Gene, I don't even know what those featues *are*.)
>
> From my personal experience, the following two things are
>
On 2017-08-21, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 05:58:43AM +0100, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:
>> van Smoorenburg init and systemd actually have nothing whatsoever to do with
>> it. ifconfig uses one Linux API for sending information to and from the
>&
On Monday 21 August 2017 09:08:11 Christian Seiler wrote:
> Am 2017-08-21 14:50, schrieb Greg Wooledge:
> > [missing features in ifconfig]
> > (Like Gene, I don't even know what those featues *are*.)
>
> From my personal experience, the following two things are
>
From: ans...@debian.org
> To: Fungi4All
> debian-user\@lists.debian.org
>
> Fungi4All writes:
>>> Never. Debian developers are not your lackeys.
>>
>> Unless you are willing to pay more than n s a sys tem d red hat and they can
>> become "your" lackeys.
>
> Could you take your crazy conspiracy
Am 2017-08-21 14:50, schrieb Greg Wooledge:
[missing features in ifconfig]
(Like Gene, I don't even know what those featues *are*.)
From my personal experience, the following two things are
features I'm actually using regularly and that don't work
with it:
1. IPv6 doesn't
On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 05:58:43AM +0100, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:
> van Smoorenburg init and systemd actually have nothing whatsoever to do with
> it. ifconfig uses one Linux API for sending information to and from the
> kernel, ip uses a different Linux API. Ironically, the
Erik Christiansen:
Gene, ifconfig is SysV flavoured, so not favoured on the Systemd
journey, AIUI.
van Smoorenburg init and systemd actually have nothing whatsoever to do
with it. ifconfig uses one Linux API for sending information to and
from the kernel, ip uses a different Linux API
On Sunday 20 August 2017 23:14:06 Erik Christiansen wrote:
> On 20.08.17 11:41, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > Having a decent recipe for setting up my local network to ipv6, I'd
> > feel a lot more comfortable and capable of dealing with ipv6 when
> > ipv6 is the operating network on the other side of m
On 20.08.17 11:41, Gene Heskett wrote:
> Having a decent recipe for setting up my local network to ipv6, I'd feel
> a lot more comfortable and capable of dealing with ipv6 when ipv6 is the
> operating network on the other side of my router. 150 miles away is NOT
> on the other side of my router.
; >
> > Continuing:
> >
> > It is broken in that it just *can't* handle the Linux networking
> > stack except for the bare minimum functionality on IPv4 (no, it
> > doesn't meet even the bare minimum for IPv6), and the only reason we
> > had to keep it
On 19.08.17 09:26, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Saturday 19 August 2017 04:15:42 Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:
> > That is, in fact, what the BSD people did. On FreeBSD and OpenBSD,
> > for examples, modern ifconfig has fully functional IPv6 capability,
> > with parameters li
lude it in the standard distro. (They're probably not running
> IPv6, if Gene and I are any guide.)
>
> But it took only a moment to apt-get the package, giving me ifconfig on
> debian 9.0, and nullifying all reason to seek any default inclusions.
Gosh. At last a reasonable sta
; except for the bare minimum functionality on IPv4 (no, it doesn't meet
> even the bare minimum for IPv6), and the only reason we had to keep it
> around by default (consistent output that some scripts scrapped) was
> broken by GNU upstream when it took ifconfig out of the bit-r
Fungi4All writes:
>> Never. Debian developers are not your lackeys.
>
> Unless you are willing to pay more than n s a sys tem d red hat and they can
> become "your" lackeys.
Could you take your crazy conspiracy theories somewhere else? I'm also
very tempted to suggest contacting a mental health
On 2017-08-19, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Saturday 19 August 2017 04:15:42 Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:
>
>> Glenn English:
>> > I've written many scripts over the years, using ifconfig and others,
>> > and having everything broken now is a major PITA.
>>
On 2017-08-19, Brian wrote:
(...)
> network-mangler? This demonstrates a disdain for the work put into
> making networking comfortable on Debian. It also probably infers a
> lack of any deep understanding of how the software works.
s/infers/implies
Other than that, +1
--
Liam
On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 10:23:37AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Saturday 19 August 2017 09:30:10 Nicolas George wrote:
>
> > Le duodi 2 fructidor, an CCXXV, Gene Heskett a écrit :
> > > So when do we get that ported and into debian, replacing this
> > > gibberish generator called ip, so we can
On Saturday 19 August 2017 15:38:14 Brian wrote:
> On Sat 19 Aug 2017 at 15:26:02 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Saturday 19 August 2017 14:57:46 Brian wrote:
> > > /etc/hosts files advocated? What is wrong with using avahi-demon?
> > > This is 2017.
> >
> > For starters, it seems not to want t
On Sat 19 Aug 2017 at 15:26:02 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Saturday 19 August 2017 14:57:46 Brian wrote:
>
> > /etc/hosts files advocated? What is wrong with using avahi-demon?
> > This is 2017.
>
> For starters, it seems not to want to use 192.168 addresses very well. I
> run it, but no c
On Saturday 19 August 2017 14:57:46 Brian wrote:
> On Sat 19 Aug 2017 at 14:38:57 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Saturday 19 August 2017 10:49:57 Nicolas George wrote:
> > > Le duodi 2 fructidor, an CCXXV, Fungi4All a écrit :
> > > > >> Unless you are willing to pay more than n s a sys tem d re
On Sat 19 Aug 2017 at 14:38:57 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Saturday 19 August 2017 10:49:57 Nicolas George wrote:
>
> > Le duodi 2 fructidor, an CCXXV, Fungi4All a écrit :
> > > >> Unless you are willing to pay more than n s a sys tem d red hat
> > > >> and they can become "your" lackeys.
> >
On Saturday 19 August 2017 10:49:57 Nicolas George wrote:
> Le duodi 2 fructidor, an CCXXV, Fungi4All a écrit :
> > >> Unless you are willing to pay more than n s a sys tem d red hat
> > >> and they can become "your" lackeys.
> > >
> > > Suggesting that the Debian developers who chose to use syste
e* system anymore.
Continuing:
It is broken in that it just *can't* handle the Linux networking stack
except for the bare minimum functionality on IPv4 (no, it doesn't meet
even the bare minimum for IPv6), and the only reason we had to keep it
around by default (consistent output
Le duodi 2 fructidor, an CCXXV, Fungi4All a écrit :
> >> Unless you are willing to pay more than n s a sys tem d red hat and they
> >> can
> >> become "your" lackeys.
> > Suggesting that the Debian developers who chose to use systemd did so
> > because they are corrupt and were payed by RedHat in
Le duodi 2 fructidor, an CCXXV, Fungi4All a écrit :
> Unless you are willing to pay more than n s a sys tem d red hat and they can
> become "your" lackeys.
Suggesting that the Debian developers who chose to use systemd did so
because they are corrupt and were payed by RedHat instead is libelous
an
> From: geo...@nsup.org
> To: Fungi4All
> debian-user@lists.debian.org , Gene Heskett
>
>
> Le duodi 2 fructidor, an CCXXV, Fungi4All a écrit :
>> Unless you are willing to pay more than n s a sys tem d red hat and they can
>> become "your" lackeys.
>
> Suggesting that the Debian developers who
On Saturday 19 August 2017 09:30:10 Nicolas George wrote:
> Le duodi 2 fructidor, an CCXXV, Gene Heskett a écrit :
> > So when do we get that ported and into debian, replacing this
> > gibberish generator called ip, so we can just get back to doing the
> > things we want to do with a computer?
>
>
> From: fungil...@protonmail.com
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Gene Heskett
>
>> From: geo...@nsup.org
>> To: Gene Heskett
>> debian-user@lists.debian.org
>>
>> Le duodi 2 fructidor, an CCXXV, Gene Heskett a écrit :
>>> So when do we get that ported and into debian, replacing this gibberi
> From: geo...@nsup.org
> To: Gene Heskett
> debian-user@lists.debian.org
>
> Le duodi 2 fructidor, an CCXXV, Gene Heskett a écrit :
>> So when do we get that ported and into debian, replacing this gibberish
>> generator call ip, so we can just get back to doing the things we want
>> to do with a
Le duodi 2 fructidor, an CCXXV, Gene Heskett a écrit :
> So when do we get that ported and into debian, replacing this gibberish
> generator call ip, so we can just get back to doing the things we want
> to do with a computer?
Never. Debian developers are not your lackeys.
--
Nicolas George
On Saturday 19 August 2017 04:15:42 Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:
> Glenn English:
> > I've written many scripts over the years, using ifconfig and others,
> > and having everything broken now is a major PITA.
> >
> > I very much agree that sysV init an
On Sat, 19 Aug 2017, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:
> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh:
> > [...] and the only reason we had to keep it around by default [...] was
> > broken by GNU upstream when it took ifconfig out of the bit-rot pit hell
> > and started maintaining it again.
On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 09:15:42AM +0100, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:
> Glenn English:
>
> > I've written many scripts over the years, using ifconfig and others, and
> > having everything broken now is a major
> > PITA.
> >
> > I very much agree tha
Glenn English:
I've written many scripts over the years, using ifconfig and others,
and having everything broken now is a major PITA.
I very much agree that sysV init and those old commands were a mess,
especially with the introduction of ipv6. But I'd have more inclined
to fi
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh:
[...] and the only reason we had to keep it around by default [...]
was broken by GNU upstream when it took ifconfig out of the bit-rot
pit hell and started maintaining it again.
net-tools is not a GNU Software package.
* https://sourceforge.net/projects/net
> Much less was I trying to criticize you,
Oh I didn't think you were :-)
> Just trying to raise awareness about (the few) shell variation idiosyncracies
> I know about, to help making people's lives easier.
Sounds good to me.
--
Cheers,
Clive
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 02:56:01PM +0100, Clive Standbridge wrote:
>
> > The "declare", OTOH, is pretty Bashist. But it can be replaced by
> > a simple "echo":
>
> True. It was just a convenient way of showing that the variable hadn't
> absorbed any
> The "declare", OTOH, is pretty Bashist. But it can be replaced by
> a simple "echo":
True. It was just a convenient way of showing that the variable hadn't
absorbed any white space.
Besides, I was just picking up the "Bash can't do it" gauntlet. I'd
often prefer awk in such a situation (like
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 11:58:06AM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> oldIFS="$IFS"; IFS=': '; ip -o link | while read num interface other;
> do echo "$interface"; done; IFS="$oldIFS"
ip -o link | while IFS=' :' read -r _ i _; do echo "<$i>"; done
There's no need to set IFS globally and then
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 04:58:24AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Wednesday 16 August 2017 03:28:43 Clive Standbridge wrote:
>
> > oldIFS="$IFS"; IFS=': '; ip -o link | while read num interface other;
> > do declare -p interface; done; IFS="$oldIFS"
On Wednesday 16 August 2017 03:28:43 Clive Standbridge wrote:
> oldIFS="$IFS"; IFS=': '; ip -o link | while read num interface other;
> do declare -p interface; done; IFS="$oldIFS"
Now thats an interesting bit of bashism, and deeper into it than I have
waded. But for this local network, I know w
> wooledg:~$ ip -o link | awk -F": " '{print $2}'
> lo
> eth0
>
> The only other scripting language I know that can do splitting with
> multi-character separators is perl.
>
> wooledg:~$ ip -o link | perl -ne '@x=split(/: /); print $x[1], "\n"'
> lo
> eth0
>
> Bash and Tcl can't do it, at least
ge wrote:
> > > > > > > > L'octidi 28 thermidor, an CCXXV, Erik Christiansen a
> écrit :
> > > > > > > > > If it's no longer part of the base system, then perhaps
> > > > > > > > >
On Tuesday 15 August 2017 16:01:25 Curt wrote:
> On 2017-08-15, Gene Heskett wrote:
> >> > > If this still isn't what you want, tell us what you *do* want.
> >> >
> >> > An ifconfig style output by default.
> >>
> >> Then why
10:48:12 Nicolas George wrote:
> > > > > L'octidi 28 thermidor, an CCXXV, Erik Christiansen a écrit :
> > > > > > Around 30 years of familiarity across many *nix flavours.
> > > > >
> > > > > You said it: the only superiority
iansen a
écrit :
> > > > > > > > If it's no longer part of the base system, then perhaps
> > > > > > > > the system is too base?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Please ellaborate. Why should ifconfig be part of th
t; > > > > > > > If it's no longer part of the base system, then perhaps
> > > > > > > > the system is too base?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Please ellaborate. Why should ifconfig be part of the base
>
On 2017-08-15, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> > >
>> > > If this still isn't what you want, tell us what you *do* want.
>> >
>> > An ifconfig style output by default.
>>
>> Then why not use ifconfig?
>
> Of course I do, since ipv4 is the l
; > >
> > > > ip -s addr
> > > >
> > > > Note that the netmask is shown in CIDR notation (e.g. /23) rather
> > > > than dotted quad notation (e.g. 255.255.254.0).
> > > >
> > > > If this still isn't what you want,
27;octidi 28 thermidor, an CCXXV, Erik Christiansen a écrit :
> > > > > Around 30 years of familiarity across many *nix flavours.
> > > >
> > > > You said it: the only superiority of ifconfig over iproute2 is
> > > > tradition and familiarity of long-t
then perhaps the
> > > > > > > system is too base?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please ellaborate. Why should ifconfig be part of the base
> > > > > > system?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
then perhaps the
> > > > > > > system is too base?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please ellaborate. Why should ifconfig be part of the base
> > > > > > system?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
30 years of familiarity across many *nix flavours.
> > >
> > > You said it: the only superiority of ifconfig over iproute2 is
> > > tradition and familiarity of long-time users. On the other hand,
> > > ifconfig is technically inferior on most if not all points
tion (e.g. /23) rather
> > > than dotted quad notation (e.g. 255.255.254.0).
> > >
> > > If this still isn't what you want, tell us what you *do* want.
> >
> > An ifconfig style output by default.
>
> Then why not use ifconfig?
Of course I do, sin
On Tuesday 15 August 2017 14:01:28 Nicolas George wrote:
> L'octidi 28 thermidor, an CCXXV, Gene Heskett a écrit :
> > Nicolas: The nearest ipv6 address to me is likely 150 miles north,
> > in Pittsburgh PA. Its all ipv4 here in WV AFAIK.
>
> You seem to be under the misapprehension that the polic
07:33:53 Nicolas George wrote:
> > > > > L'octidi 28 thermidor, an CCXXV, Erik Christiansen a écrit :
> > > > > > If it's no longer part of the base system, then perhaps the
> > > > > > system is too base?
> > > > >
> >
On Tue 15 Aug 2017 at 19:13:54 (+0200), Pierre Frenkiel wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2017, Greg Wooledge wrote:
>
> >On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 06:24:42PM +0200, Pierre Frenkiel wrote:
> >>On Tue, 15 Aug 2017, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> >>
> >>>ip -o link | awk -F": " '{print $2}'
> >>
> >> and even shorter:
; You said it: the only superiority of ifconfig over iproute2 is
> > tradition and familiarity of long-time users. On the other hand,
> > ifconfig is technically inferior on most if not all points.
> >
> > I hope you realize that traditions and familiarity of old geezers can
>
L'octidi 28 thermidor, an CCXXV, Gene Heskett a écrit :
> Nicolas: The nearest ipv6 address to me is likely 150 miles north, in
> Pittsburgh PA. Its all ipv4 here in WV AFAIK.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that the policy of Debian
development revolves around your personal perceived ne
ose interfaces.
> >
> > If you want the IPv4 address, netmask, and transfer stats, try:
> >
> > ip -s addr
> >
> > Note that the netmask is shown in CIDR notation (e.g. /23) rather
> > than dotted quad notation (e.g. 255.255.254.0).
> >
> > I
27;octidi 28 thermidor, an CCXXV, Erik Christiansen a écrit :
> > > > > If it's no longer part of the base system, then perhaps the
> > > > > system is too base?
> > > >
> > > > Please ellaborate. Why should ifconfig be part of the base system?
>
, try:
>
> ip -s addr
>
> Note that the netmask is shown in CIDR notation (e.g. /23) rather
> than dotted quad notation (e.g. 255.255.254.0).
>
> If this still isn't what you want, tell us what you *do* want.
An ifconfig style output by default.
Cheers, Gene Heskett
--
#x27;s no longer part of the base system, then perhaps the
> > > > system is too base?
> > >
> > > Please ellaborate. Why should ifconfig be part of the base system?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> >
> > Because ip is a pain in the ass to make it r
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 01:41:16PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> While STILL not giving me the local ipv4 addresses and netmasks of those
> interfaces.
If you want the IPv4 address, netmask, and transfer stats, try:
ip -s addr
Note that the netmask is shown in CIDR notation (e.g. /23) rather
tha
On Tuesday 15 August 2017 12:38:49 Pierre Frenkiel wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2017, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > wooledg:~$ netstat -in
> > Kernel Interface table
> > Iface MTURX-OK RX-ERR RX-DRP RX-OVRTX-OK TX-ERR TX-DRP
> > TX-OVR Flg eth0 1500 8254258 0 0 0 7682795
On Tuesday 15 August 2017 10:48:12 Nicolas George wrote:
> L'octidi 28 thermidor, an CCXXV, Erik Christiansen a écrit :
> > Around 30 years of familiarity across many *nix flavours.
>
> You said it: the only superiority of ifconfig over iproute2 is
> tradition and familia
On Tue, 15 Aug 2017, Greg Wooledge wrote:
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 06:24:42PM +0200, Pierre Frenkiel wrote:
On Tue, 15 Aug 2017, Greg Wooledge wrote:
ip -o link | awk -F": " '{print $2}'
and even shorter:
ip -o link | cut -d : -f 2
They are not equivalent. Yours leaves extra whitespac
t; > > is too base?
> >
> > Please ellaborate. Why should ifconfig be part of the base system?
> >
> > Regards,
>
> Because ip is a pain in the ass to make it run, and still gives grossly
> incomplete information?
>
> In 2 years, I have yet to get a full n
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 06:24:42PM +0200, Pierre Frenkiel wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2017, Greg Wooledge wrote:
>
> > ip -o link | awk -F": " '{print $2}'
>
> and even shorter:
> ip -o link | cut -d : -f 2
They are not equivalent. Yours leaves extra whitespace.
wooledg:~$ ip -o link | cut -d
On Tue, 15 Aug 2017, Greg Wooledge wrote:
wooledg:~$ netstat -in
Kernel Interface table
Iface MTURX-OK RX-ERR RX-DRP RX-OVRTX-OK TX-ERR TX-DRP TX-OVR Flg
eth0 1500 8254258 0 0 0 7682795 0 0 0 BMRU
lo 65536 579959 0 0 057
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 3:23 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> Because ip is a pain in the ass to make it run, and still gives grossly
> incomplete information?
>
> In 2 years, I have yet to get a full network report out of ip such as
> ifconfig gives.
How about fixing ip? Like 'i
On Tue, 15 Aug 2017, Greg Wooledge wrote:
ip -o link | awk -F": " '{print $2}'
and even shorter:
ip -o link | cut -d : -f 2
BTW, I suggest to abandon, in the subject, the reference to the
OP's subject ("was ..."), as this thread has really
nothing to do with inittab stuff
On Tuesday 15 August 2017 07:33:53 Nicolas George wrote:
> L'octidi 28 thermidor, an CCXXV, Erik Christiansen a écrit :
> > If it's no longer part of the base system, then perhaps the system
> > is too base?
>
> Please ellaborate. Why should ifconfig be part
1 - 100 of 425 matches
Mail list logo