Re: ifconfig stats ??? Wrong behavior OR BUG ?

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

Re: ifconfig stats ??? Wrong behavior OR BUG ?

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.

Re: ifconfig stats ??? Wrong behavior OR BUG ?

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 me,

ifconfig stats ??? Wrong behavior OR BUG ?

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

Re: No ifconfig

* 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

Re: ifconfig/ ifupdown/ ip -

john doe wrote: > I would use mapping stanza instead: > > http://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/trusty/man5/interfaces.5.html +1

Re: ifconfig/ ifupdown/ ip -

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

Re: ifconfig/ ifupdown/ ip -

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

Re: ifconfig/ ifupdown/ ip -

> > > > > 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

Re: ifconfig/ ifupdown/ ip -

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. >

Re: ifconfig/ ifupdown/ ip -

, 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 now I

Re: ifconfig/ ifupdown/ ip -

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

Re: ifconfig/ ifupdown/ ip -

> > 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

Re: ifconfig/ ifupdown/ ip -

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

Re: ifconfig/ ifupdown/ ip -

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

ifconfig/ ifupdown/ ip -

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 disco

No ifconfig

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|. (-:

No ifconfig

|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 inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask

No ifconfig [Was: no /etc/inittab]

EFAULT group default qlen 1000 link/ether a0:8c:fd:c3:89:e0 brd 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 lo

Re: No ifconfig

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

Re: No ifconfig

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

Re: No ifconfig

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

Re: No ifconfig

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

Re: No ifconfig

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

Re: No ifconfig

ress 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't explicitly bind anything). And "ip a" will show all >> three addresses, but "ifconfig

Re: No ifconfig

e 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 this stanza

Re: No ifconfig

rimary 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 reset to 192.

Re: No ifconfig

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 > fea

Re: No ifconfig

On 2017-08-21, Greg Wooledge <wool...@eeg.ccf.org> 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 in

Re: No ifconfig

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 > fea

Re: No ifconfig

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

Re: No ifconfig

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 really work properly

Re: No ifconfig

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

Re: No ifconfig

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

Re: No ifconfig

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

Re: No ifconfig

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

Re: No ifconfig

> > 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 (c

Re: No ifconfig

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

Re: No ifconfig

o include 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 standpoint

Re: No ifconfig

pt 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-rot pit hell >

Re: No ifconfig

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

Re: No ifconfig

On 2017-08-19, Gene Heskett <ghesk...@shentel.net> 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 n

Re: No ifconfig

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

Re: No ifconfig

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

Re: No ifconfig

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

Re: No ifconfig

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

Re: No ifconfig

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: No ifconfig

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. >

Re: No ifconfig

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

Re: No ifconfig

t 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 that some scripts scrapped) was broken b

Re: No ifconfig

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

Re: No ifconfig

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

Re: No ifconfig

> 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

Re: No ifconfig

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? >

Re: No ifconfig

> 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

Re: No ifconfig

> 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

Re: No ifconfig

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

Re: No ifconfig

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 and tho

Re: No ifconfig

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

Re: No ifconfig

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 that s

Re: No ifconfig

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 fix what

No ifconfig

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

Re: Re: Re: No ifconfig [Was: no /etc/inittab]

> 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

Re: Re: No ifconfig [Was: no /etc/inittab]

-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

Re: Re: No ifconfig [Was: no /etc/inittab]

> 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

Re: No ifconfig [Was: no /etc/inittab]

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

Re: No ifconfig [Was: no /etc/inittab]

-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"

Re: No ifconfig [Was: no /etc/inittab]

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

Re: Re: No ifconfig [Was: no /etc/inittab]

> 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

Re: No ifconfig [Was: no /etc/inittab]

ge 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

Re: No ifconfig

On Tuesday 15 August 2017 16:01:25 Curt wrote: > On 2017-08-15, Gene Heskett <ghesk...@shentel.net> wrote: > >> > > If this still isn't what you want, tell us what you *do* want. > >> > > >> > An ifconfig style output by default. > >> >

Re: No ifconfig [Was: no /etc/inittab]

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 i

Re: No ifconfig [Was: no /etc/inittab]

n 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 >

Re: No ifconfig [Was: no /etc/inittab]

n 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 > > >

Re: No ifconfig

On 2017-08-15, Gene Heskett <ghesk...@shentel.net> 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 co

Re: No ifconfig

; > > > > > > 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

Re: No ifconfig [Was: no /etc/inittab]

tidi 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-time u

Re: No ifconfig [Was: no /etc/inittab]

ps the > > > > > > > system is too base? > > > > > > > > > > > > Please ellaborate. Why should ifconfig be part of the base > > > > > > system? > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > >

Re: No ifconfig [Was: no /etc/inittab]

ps the > > > > > > > system is too base? > > > > > > > > > > > > Please ellaborate. Why should ifconfig be part of the base > > > > > > system? > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > >

Re: No ifconfig [Was: no /etc/inittab]

ars 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. >

Re: No ifconfig

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. > > Then why not use ifconfig? Of course I do, since ip

Re: No ifconfig [Was: no /etc/inittab]

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

Re: No ifconfig [Was: no /etc/inittab]

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? > > > > > > > > >

Re: No ifconfig

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

Re: No ifconfig [Was: no /etc/inittab]

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 >

Re: No ifconfig [Was: no /etc/inittab]

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

Re: No ifconfig

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

Re: No ifconfig [Was: no /etc/inittab]

tidi 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? > > >

Re: No ifconfig

, 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 -- &

Re: No ifconfig [Was: no /etc/inittab]

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 run, and st

Re: No ifconfig

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

Re: No ifconfig

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

Re: No ifconfig [Was: no /etc/inittab]

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 familiarity

Re: No ifconfig

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

Re: No ifconfig [Was: no /etc/inittab]

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 network rep

Re: No ifconfig

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

Re: No ifconfig

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 0

Re: No ifconfig [Was: no /etc/inittab]

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 3:23 PM, Gene Heskett <ghesk...@shentel.net> 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

Re: No ifconfig

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

Re: No ifconfig [Was: no /etc/inittab]

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 of the bas

  1   2   3   4   5   6   >