Andy wrote:
I was incorrect, it does work. However:
1. It uses the old style aliasing scheme as used by ifconfig.
2. It only works because the ip command just ignores the :n on the
interface name.
You are correct! ip addr show only shows the interfaces as eth0
ignoring the :0 etc. and ifconfig
Thanks for the reply Sebastian.
/A lot of the information on the web that I came across is quite old and
referred to either creating a whole new interface directory (eth0:0 -
which of course didn't work), or using ifconfig.
Why does that not work? It has been working for the last 2 years on
Okay, I see. Nonetheless would it be possible to still either get
the script altered anyway, or to add a note to the networking page
of the book stating that it is just a matter of adding a second
config file in the interface directory for a second address.
I agree with Andy here.
/ On Jun 8, 2007, at 6:50 PM, /*Andrew Beverley*/ wrote:
/A lot of the information on the web that I came across is quite old and
referred to either creating a whole new interface directory (eth0:0 -
which of course didn't work), or using ifconfig.
Why does that not work? It has been working for
On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 15:00 -0500, Zachary Kotlarek wrote:
On Jun 6, 2007, at 6:34 PM, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
I suspect the alias option exists in ip for compatibility with
ifconfig,
and no other reason. But I don't know that for sure.
I believe that's correct. In the past the kernel
On 6/8/07, Andrew Beverley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 15:00 -0500, Zachary Kotlarek wrote:
On Jun 6, 2007, at 6:34 PM, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
I suspect the alias option exists in ip for compatibility with
ifconfig,
and no other reason. But I don't know that for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Dan Nicholson wrote:
On 6/8/07, Andrew Beverley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Okay, I see. Nonetheless would it be possible to still either get
the script altered anyway, or to add a note to the networking page
of the book stating that it is
On Jun 8, 2007, at 8:59 AM, Dan Nicholson wrote:
On 6/8/07, Andrew Beverley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree with Andy here. Regardless of the reason for alias/label, if
it's used in iproute2, we should expose the functionality. This page I
found on linux-ip.net seems to promote using labels
On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 19:34 -0400, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
Andrew Beverley wrote:
Personally though, I think it would be useful to still include the
ALIAS directive (it's only a few extra line of code).
It may only be a few lines of code, but it's another entire service
script, 90-some
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Andrew Beverley wrote:
Therefore, you can just add the few lines of code that deal with an
alias argument into the existing ip4-static.
Oh, duh. You're right, this would work.
True, but I still find myself using ifconfig because it's easier
El Jueves, 7 de Junio de 2007 05:00, Bryan Kadzban escribió:
this list whose address isn't resolving again. It seems like it's
taking these messages about a half hour to get delivered. The message
I'm replying to was sent at 21:42 EDT, but wasn't delivered to my mail
server until 22:04 EDT.
On Jun 6, 2007, at 6:34 PM, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
I suspect the alias option exists in ip for compatibility with
ifconfig,
and no other reason. But I don't know that for sure.
I believe that's correct. In the past the kernel supported aliases
with independent statistics and the like, but
On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 19:22 -0400, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
Andrew Beverley wrote:
I've created an ipv4-alias script, please see attached. However, it
is almost exactly the same as the ipv4-static script (it still needs
all the same parameters as a normal static address), which makes me
think
this list whose address isn't resolving again. It seems like it's
taking these messages about a half hour to get delivered. The message
I'm replying to was sent at 21:42 EDT, but wasn't delivered to my mail
server until 22:04 EDT. Might be worth double-checking out what's going
on with
(Background: I needed a method to add an aliased IP address to an
existing interface. No set out method is currently available in LFS to
achieve this)
I think this would be a worthwhile inclusion to LFS. Have you emailed
lfs-dev or would you like me to?
The right way to do this is to add a
On 6/4/07, Andrew Beverley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've created an ipv4-alias script, please see attached. However, it is
almost exactly the same as the ipv4-static script (it still needs all
the same parameters as a normal static address), which makes me think
that the ipv4-static script
On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 14:07 -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
On 6/4/07, Andrew Beverley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've created an ipv4-alias script, please see attached. However, it is
almost exactly the same as the ipv4-static script (it still needs all
the same parameters as a normal static
Andrew Beverley wrote:
I've created an ipv4-alias script, please see attached. However, it
is almost exactly the same as the ipv4-static script (it still needs
all the same parameters as a normal static address), which makes me
think that the ipv4-static script should just be updated so that
18 matches
Mail list logo
