-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hey.
> This was still discussed and a clear win for "ip" > (smaller binary of "ip" than ifconfig/route/arp and more > functions) > https://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-devel/2009-June/004481.html I know but this comparisation assumed the builtin busybox ip which has some drawbacks: - - It does not cover everything the real IP does so for complex tasks you'd normally need ip for you'll still have to install the full one - - It clashes with the full "ip", a user would have to remove the symlink and live with two copies of "ip" on his system, one of them unusable - - Not even ImageBuilder can mitigate the problem since "ip" is hardlinked into BusyBox so one can't get rid of it once BB is compiled with it - - Updating "iproute2" to support new features (macvlan, L2TPv3) is easier and has less impact than updating the whole BusyBox - - BusyBox "ip" is lagging behind feature wise - - Output and accepted input formats of BB ip might differ slightly compared to iproute2, causing trouble for network scripts relying on particular features. - - Scripting wise "ip" doesn't solve the problem of output parsing either, its equally hard to process as "ifconfig" and "route" output. I am not against "ip" per se but I don't like the idea of switching to it just for the nice syntax, the mentioned problems above are not worth it. I do know that "ip" offers some features not possible with "ifconfig", for example unnamed aliases or IP tunnels of various kinds (ipip, 6in4). I could live with an "ip-mini" and "ip" package but having it embedded in BusyBox is impracticable imo. ~ Jow -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkyPYCMACgkQdputYINPTPOiVgCbBth6tjw+wN4fo2cYdn48AF6y X1MAn3gSwvvD9Es0bZRbNxVcniXBj2pv =uGCK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
