On 8/26/07, Zoran Kikic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think because you just added another interface called eth0, and it > > conflicts with the original one. > > > >> Does a final "alias" solution exists out there? > > > > Not yet, but there's a patch on the mailing list that I've been > > meaning to apply. > > Well, I thought this is the new way adding aliases which makes the > patch unnecessary. Newer kernels supports this but ifconfig don't > like that. > > I wonder about this old entry: > http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/1013 > > Here is the blfs discussion: > http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/blfs-support/2007-June/thread.html
Andrew Beverley posted a new service script (ipv4-alias, I think), but follow the discussion on lfs-dev. Bryan Kadzban's comments seem to say that the configuration you're using is completely valid. http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/2007-June/059442.html -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
