https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54874
--- Comment #5 from Sebb <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Dan Fruehauf from comment #3) > (In reply to Sebb from comment #2) > > What advantage does using the device name give? > > Does it do anything other than choose the IP address for that device? > > The scenario I solved at the time - when submitting this patch was trying to > create HTTP load via VPN devices with dynamically assigned addresses. While > possible to regenerate the scenario every time VPN devices change addresses, > I've found it cleaner to be able to assign devices in the scenario rather > than addresses. The script that fired up the VPN devices knew what devices > are going to come up, but the addresses would be assigned dynamically every > time. The current behaviour of having a source IP address is still preserved > after applying this patch. As a work-round, maybe you could use a property for the IP address and define the property on the command-line. But provided that the change does not affect any existing tests, I don't see why the field should not allow device names as well as host names. However, the current implementation always searches the device names first; I think that is wrong. This is because it takes time to search the interfaces and the device name will override a hostname. Perhaps just process the hostnames first - would that work? Or maybe insist that device names always have the ipv[46]: prefix, or insist that they have a suffix that is not valid for a hostname - e.g. "eth0:" -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
