Le 05/04/2012 20:04, Guillaume Rousse a écrit :
Le 05/04/2012 10:56, Gonéri Le Bouder a écrit :
Hello all,
I think we all agree we should enforce a consistent strategy
everywhere. My
favorite ones would be 1, then 3, then 2. mainly because I prefer the
idea
of having all 'networks' entries corresponding to a single concept,
rather
than the idea of mixing concepts just for practical advantage.
OCS uses the second solution, and we are supposed to follow this
structure for
the moment.
This is design problem with IPv6, since it's now common to see one
interface with
various IPv6 configuration.
I missed the fact that actually, only IPv6 is concerned with multiple
addresses with the same interface names (multiple IPv4 ones usually use
different interfaces aliases)
I just found out I was wrong, as ip_addr-2 sample shows an interface
with two different IPv4 addresses:
2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast
state UP qlen 1000
link/ether 0f:0f:0f:0f:0f:0f brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
inet 11.11.11.11/25 brd 11.11.11.127 scope global eth0
inet 172.16.0.201/17 brd 172.16.127.255 scope global eth0
Let's forget my last proposition then :(
--
Coulters never fall off on the headlands.
-- Plowman's Precept n°1
_______________________________________________
Fusioninventory-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fusioninventory-devel
