Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2022/12/15 09:47, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > Other than that, I still think MAC is the identifier we should give
> > priority to.
> > So I would like for this to be flipped, and then I think we can consider
> > this
> > work done.
>
> Do we want to give users a clue
On 2022/12/15 09:47, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> Other than that, I still think MAC is the identifier we should give priority
> to.
> So I would like for this to be flipped, and then I think we can consider this
> work done.
Do we want to give users a clue that this works (for hostname.vlanX
or aggr/p
Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2022/12/15 05:19, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> > Yes, I agree with Theo here that lladdr is more specific and should win
> > present.
>
> That depends on the hardware ;)
So you are talking about hardware without an encoded MAC, where the kernel
supplies a random MAC to ge
On 2022/12/15 05:19, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> Yes, I agree with Theo here that lladdr is more specific and should win
> present.
That depends on the hardware ;)
On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 05:19:14AM +, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 04:27:37PM -0800, Andrew Hewus Fresh wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 06:48:36AM +, Jason McIntyre wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 09, 2022 at 09:32:13PM +, Jason McIntyre wrote:
> > > > hi.
> > > >
> > > >
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 04:27:37PM -0800, Andrew Hewus Fresh wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 06:48:36AM +, Jason McIntyre wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 09, 2022 at 09:32:13PM +, Jason McIntyre wrote:
> > > hi.
> > >
> > > two points about the recent ability to use lladdr:
> > >
> > > - the exam
On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 06:48:36AM +, Jason McIntyre wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 09, 2022 at 09:32:13PM +, Jason McIntyre wrote:
> > hi.
> >
> > two points about the recent ability to use lladdr:
> >
> > - the example of "bridge0" made sense when bridge was regarded as a
> > separate entity an
On Fri, Dec 09, 2022 at 09:32:13PM +, Jason McIntyre wrote:
> hi.
>
> two points about the recent ability to use lladdr:
>
> - the example of "bridge0" made sense when bridge was regarded as a
> separate entity and not integrated with ifconfig. plus a list of one
> example looks rubbish.
hi.
two points about the recent ability to use lladdr:
- the example of "bridge0" made sense when bridge was regarded as a
separate entity and not integrated with ifconfig. plus a list of one
example looks rubbish. now that we have a second example (lladdr) and
bridge is not flagged as a sp
