Hi,
Both kettenis@ and mpi@ have mentioned in private that my proposed
changes to tsleep_nsec(9) etc. would be nicer if we could just get rid
of tsleep(9) etc. entirely.
This is difficult, but I'll try.
Worst case, we thin out the remaining callers. There are not many
left.
--
So, an(4) is on
Definately.
Furthermore it is almost a scandal that reserved ports were chosen for
the example, for a protocol which would not require it.
Stuart Henderson wrote:
> Trying out the example from wg(4) I ran into this:
>
> # ifconfig wg1 192.168.5.1/24
> ifconfig: SIOCAIFADDR: Address already i
Trying out the example from wg(4) I ran into this:
# ifconfig wg1 192.168.5.1/24
ifconfig: SIOCAIFADDR: Address already in use
After some head scratching it turns out that it's not complaining about
anything set on the line immediately resulting in the error, but instead
it's really wgport (that