* Claudio Jeker <cje...@diehard.n-r-g.com> [2014-05-15 09:42]: > On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 05:48:16AM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote: > > * Reyk Flöter <reyk.floe...@googlemail.com> [2014-05-15 01:04]: > > > > On 15.05.2014, at 00:46, Henning Brauer <lists-openbsdt...@bsws.de> > > > > wrote: > > > > * Mark Kettenis <mark.kette...@xs4all.nl> [2014-05-15 00:15]: > > > >> I don't think this is a good idea; didn't we establish the other day > > > >> that "ifconfig <if> eui64" already did what your +inet6 does? > > > > almost, it's ifconfig <if> inet6 eui64 - but that isn't all THAT > > > > intuitive. I like +inet6 as the opposite of -inet6. > > > We don't have "+" something. It is foo or -foo but not +foo. I know that > > > inet6 is already used for the regular addresses, but +inet6 sounds like > > > an inconsistent workaround for a workaround. I don't like it. > > > > just inet6 doesn't work, since that is already used to show all inet6 > > addrs. > > i find +inet6 very intuitive... > > This should just die. Did you ever do ifconfig em0 inet or ifconfig em0 inet6? > I never did and I have a few interfaces with a lot of IPs on them. > It is a useless gimmick of ifconfig.
changing semantics of an existing interface like this is of course much more intrusive than adding a new one. if the concensus is that the current inet/inet6 to show the addreses of that af only is bollocks and we'd rather use inet6 to turn it on, that's simple to do as well. We just need to take a decision here instead of bikeshedding forever... -- Henning Brauer, h...@bsws.de, henn...@openbsd.org BS Web Services GmbH, http://bsws.de, Full-Service ISP Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS. Virtual & Dedicated Servers, Root to Fully Managed Henning Brauer Consulting, http://henningbrauer.com/
