Doug Barton <do...@freebsd.org> wrote in <4ea23c08.6060...@freebsd.org>:
do> On 10/19/2011 00:29, Hiroki Sato wrote: do> > Mattia Rossi <mro...@swin.edu.au> wrote do> > in <4e9dfe11.2070...@swin.edu.au>: do> > do> > mr> So the _ipv6 bit doesn't take care of passing "inet6" to ifconfig do> > mr> automatically? do> > do> > No. You always need to add the inet6 keyword wherever needed. do> do> That seems redundant, and contrary to how the IPv4 equivalents work. And do> obviously it's confusing to users. From what I can see looking at some do> 7.x and 8.x systems it also seems to be a POLA violation. do> do> Perhaps this is something that you should reconsider? I am still thinking that omitting an address family keyword before an address is a bad practice. Omitting "inet" keyword in ifconfig_IF and doing in ifconfing_IF_AF are different. The former one uses ifconfig(8)'s default AF, and bz's experiments of noinet/noinet6 environment showed it was problematic. For the latter a keyword has to be automatically prepended in the rc.d scripts if we want to do so. For IPv6, having a non-null $ifconfig_IF_ipv6 means the interface is IPv6-capable and doesn't always involve address configuration (e.g. ifconfig_IF_ipv6="up" is valid). So, automatic prepending of "inet6" breaks this. Thus, both have a bad side effect. And I want to make ifconfig accept a command line for v4->v6 and/or v6->v4 tunneling as a p2p link like "inet 10.1.1.1 2001:db8::1" for a specific type of interfaces in the future. I am not sure if it will happen actually, but omitting an AF keyword and/or automatic prepending of the keyword make things difficult. -- Hiroki
pgpCsla8j2XGv.pgp
Description: PGP signature
