On Tuesday 13 February 2007 04:57, Oliver Fromme wrote:
Kevin Way wrote:
Oliver Fromme wrote:
But you called it confusing. That's just your personal
perception. It doesn't mean it is confusing to everybody.
If asked what -alias does, would you really reply it removes the
JoaoBR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oliver Fromme wrote:
No, not at all. As soon as you use the terms primary IP
address and secondary IP addresses, you imply that they
are not equal. But they are equal. It's just a list of
IP addresses assigned to an interface which happens to have
J. T. Farmer wrote:
Oliver Fromme wrote:
But when removing something without specifying which one,
it makes some sense to simply remove the first existing
address on that interface. It would even be OK with me
to remove the last one, or an arbitrary one -- I use that
shortcut
JoaoBR wrote:
The only correct thing you say here is that all IPs are equal - and - nobody
EVER said something different.
Aliasing does not say anything about priority of the Ip it is simply related
to the time the interface was set with the IP so the first IP is the one
which was set
Hi.
Interesting - Someone else mentioned the same thing. The amr(4)
manpage doesn't seem to be updated to mention the latest cards
though. I did notice the driver hasn't been really updated in a
while either. Wouldn't this cause a problem with identifying the
newer cards?
The
Interesting - Someone else mentioned the same thing. The amr(4)
manpage doesn't seem to be updated to mention the latest cards
though. I did notice the driver hasn't been really updated in a
while either. Wouldn't this cause a problem with identifying the
newer cards?
The
On Tuesday 13 February 2007 02:38 am, Oliver Fromme wrote:
JoaoBR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oliver Fromme wrote:
No, not at all. As soon as you use the terms primary IP
address and secondary IP addresses, you imply that they
are not equal. But they are equal. It's just a list of
For a set of IPs in the same subnet on the same interface, wouldn't the
primary IP be the one with the proper netmask, and all IPs with netmasks
of /32 be secondary? In that situation, wouldn't deleting the primary IP
cause connection issues for the rest of the IPs?
Indeed. I too am not
On Monday 12 February 2007 11:57 pm, Oliver Fromme wrote:
Kevin Way wrote:
Oliver Fromme wrote:
But you called it confusing. That's just your personal
perception. It doesn't mean it is confusing to everybody.
If asked what -alias does, would you really reply it removes the
On Tuesday 13 February 2007 12:44 am, JoaoBR wrote:
On Monday 12 February 2007 22:37, Joerg Pernfuss wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 19:18:54 -0300
JoaoBR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe the problem here is that
ifconfig_nic=inet IP
ifconfig_nic=ether MAC
does not work on
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 05:19:59PM +, Pete French wrote:
For a set of IPs in the same subnet on the same interface, wouldn't the
primary IP be the one with the proper netmask, and all IPs with netmasks
of /32 be secondary? In that situation, wouldn't deleting the primary IP
cause
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
I think this has been discussed before. The problem is that FreeBSD's
bootloader doesn't support booting off of such devices, thus you
need to use GRUB or another bootloader.
But the guy from tutorial is doing that, and I made such a stick too.
And it boots on ThinkPad
Hi,
While upgrading a fileserver / home wireless access point to
6.2-RELEASE, it wouldn't come back after the regular
build/installworld/mergemaster procedures.
I attached a keyboard and monitor to the server and noticed it was
panicking on boot, current process being sysctl:
Feb 13
Freddie Cash wrote:
For a set of IPs in the same subnet on the same interface, wouldn't the
primary IP be the one with the proper netmask, and all IPs with netmasks
of /32 be secondary?
That's historic. :-) Old versions of FreeBSD indeed
required the netmask of the aliases to be /32 in
Freddie Cash wrote:
Oliver Fromme wrote:
If asked what -alias does, I would reply that it is an
alias for delete or remove, which removes an IP address
from an interface. According to the docs, the IP address
to be removed must be specified. The docs don't mention
what happens
On Tuesday 13 February 2007 10:37 am, Oliver Fromme wrote:
Freddie Cash wrote:
For a set of IPs in the same subnet on the same interface, wouldn't
the primary IP be the one with the proper netmask, and all IPs with
netmasks of /32 be secondary?
That's historic. :-) Old versions of
In that situation, wouldn't deleting the primary IP
cause connection issues for the rest of the IPs?
No. I can delete _any_ of the above IP addresses, and the
others would still work perfectly fine. I already did
things like that (on a different machine).
As for outgoing
* Oliver Fromme [EMAIL PROTECTED] [20070212 19:11]:
But you called it confusing. That's just your personal
perception. It doesn't mean it is confusing to everybody.
In fact it might be useful to others. It _is_ useful to
me, for example, and I would object for that syntax to go
away. Also
Hi!
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 07:37:17PM +0100, Oliver Fromme wrote:
Freddie Cash wrote:
For a set of IPs in the same subnet on the same interface, wouldn't the
primary IP be the one with the proper netmask, and all IPs with netmasks
of /32 be secondary?
That's historic. :-) Old
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In that situation, wouldn't deleting the primary IP
cause connection issues for the rest of the IPs?
No. I can delete _any_ of the above IP addresses, and the
others would still work perfectly fine. I already did
things like that (on a different
Freddie Cash wrote:
Oliver Fromme wrote:
Freddie Cash wrote:
For a set of IPs in the same subnet on the same interface, wouldn't
the primary IP be the one with the proper netmask, and all IPs with
netmasks of /32 be secondary?
That's historic. :-) Old versions of FreeBSD
One thing I would like to see is a list of favoured non-raid multiport cards
that are not dumb. We have a server running a rocket RAID controller
(largely to get 8 ports of SATA). It doesn't do hot swap, it doesn't do
SMART and I'm beginning to believe it might occasionally corrupt sectors
On Saturday 10 February 2007 12:33, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
On Sun, 7 Jan 2007, Sven Willenberger wrote:
lock order reversal: (sleepable after non-sleepable)
1st 0x8836b010 bge0 (network driver)
@ /usr/src/sys/dev/bge/if_bge.c:2675
2nd 0x805f26b0 user map (user map) @
Karel Miklav wrote:
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
I think this has been discussed before. The problem is that FreeBSD's
bootloader doesn't support booting off of such devices, thus you
need to use GRUB or another bootloader.
But the guy from tutorial is doing that, and I made such a stick too.
24 matches
Mail list logo
