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 that the ipv4-static script should just be updated so that it > > can deal with an ALIAS variable (similar to the script Rabenkind > > did). > > Would there be any problem with doing an: > > ip addr add <addr>/<prefix> dev eth0 > > (or equivalent) and dispensing with the aliased interface name? If so, > it may be simpler to just add a second config file (with the same > ipv4-static SERVICE) to the ifconfig.eth0 directory; then you wouldn't > need a new service script. :-)
Interesting, I never knew you could do that! Having spent a lot of time reading about multiple IP addresses per interface, I never came across an example like that. Personally though, I think it would be useful to still include the ALIAS directive (it's only a few extra line of code). Firstly it gives the script the ability to deal with more of the functionality of ip (I assume there is a reason to use the alias option), and secondly, using the above does not seem to be compatible with ifconfig (which I think most people probably still use) - the second IP address doesn't show in the output of ifconfig. Regards, Andy Beverley -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
