On Fri, 2007-01-05 at 17:09 +0100, Ola Thoresen wrote:
Dan Williams wrote:
On Fri, 2007-01-05 at 15:54 +0100, Olivier Galibert wrote:
On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 09:28:48AM -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
Hmmm, looks like this kind of definition is going to have a hard time working in real setups. Lemme give you some examples of what I use on a regular basis:
Which is why it's good to have feedback :) So at least the 'gateway' item needs to be re-thought, since that's route-based and not interface/connection specific underneath. Though to many users it appears so, because they do not have complex setups, the flexibility needs to be there underneath.
It is at least important to be able to add multiple addresses to one (physical) interface.
Yep! That's obviously required.
I personally don't like the old eth0:0 eth0:1 (...), but prefer the new
That format is vile.
iproute2 style, but I guess I can live with aliases as long as it is easy to add/remove them.
Dan