>On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 05:46:12PM +0100, Henning Brauer wrote:
>> * Mike Belopuhov [2015-03-26 14:36]:
>> > On 26 March 2015 at 14:27, Stuart Henderson wrote:
>> > > seems reasonable. (I'd quite like that for v4 too, though it wouldn't
>> > > cope with non-contiguous netmask ;)
>> > non-contigu
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 05:46:12PM +0100, Henning Brauer wrote:
> * Mike Belopuhov [2015-03-26 14:36]:
> > On 26 March 2015 at 14:27, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > > seems reasonable. (I'd quite like that for v4 too, though it wouldn't
> > > cope with non-contiguous netmask ;)
> > non-contiguous ne
On 2015/03/27 12:23, Peter Hessler wrote:
> On 2015 Mar 27 (Fri) at 11:54:16 +0100 (+0100), Henning Brauer wrote:
> :* Florian Obser [2015-03-26 18:36]:
> :> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 05:46:12PM +0100, Henning Brauer wrote:
> :> > * Mike Belopuhov [2015-03-26 14:36]:
> :> > > however I agree that i
On 2015 Mar 27 (Fri) at 11:54:16 +0100 (+0100), Henning Brauer wrote:
:* Florian Obser [2015-03-26 18:36]:
:> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 05:46:12PM +0100, Henning Brauer wrote:
:> > * Mike Belopuhov [2015-03-26 14:36]:
:> > > however I agree that if we do this for ipv6 we should do it for ipv4 as
w
* Florian Obser [2015-03-26 18:36]:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 05:46:12PM +0100, Henning Brauer wrote:
> > * Mike Belopuhov [2015-03-26 14:36]:
> > > however I agree that if we do this for ipv6 we should do it for ipv4 as
> > > well
> > > but then do we care about tons of stuff out there parsing
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 06:50:37PM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> On 26/03/15(Thu) 17:39, Florian Obser wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 01:48:03PM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > > How do people feel about printing the prefixlen in CIDR notation? I'm
> > > annoyed about outputs not fitting i
On 26/03/15(Thu) 17:35, Florian Obser wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 05:46:12PM +0100, Henning Brauer wrote:
> > * Mike Belopuhov [2015-03-26 14:36]:
> > > however I agree that if we do this for ipv6 we should do it for ipv4 as
> > > well
> > > but then do we care about tons of stuff out there
On 26/03/15(Thu) 17:39, Florian Obser wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 01:48:03PM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > How do people feel about printing the prefixlen in CIDR notation? I'm
> > annoyed about outputs not fitting in 80 chars when using autoconf magic:
> >
> > -inet6 fd00::f2de:f1ff:fe6
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 01:48:03PM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> How do people feel about printing the prefixlen in CIDR notation? I'm
> annoyed about outputs not fitting in 80 chars when using autoconf magic:
>
> -inet6 fd00::f2de:f1ff:fe6a:15d1 prefixlen 64 autoconf pltime 3594 vltime 7194
>
On 26/03/15(Thu) 17:46, Henning Brauer wrote:
> * Mike Belopuhov [2015-03-26 14:36]:
> > On 26 March 2015 at 14:27, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > > seems reasonable. (I'd quite like that for v4 too, though it wouldn't
> > > cope with non-contiguous netmask ;)
> > non-contiguous netmasks for IPv4 ad
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 05:46:12PM +0100, Henning Brauer wrote:
> * Mike Belopuhov [2015-03-26 14:36]:
> > however I agree that if we do this for ipv6 we should do it for ipv4 as well
> > but then do we care about tons of stuff out there parsing ifconfig output?
>
> that's the prime question. I w
* Mike Belopuhov [2015-03-26 14:36]:
> On 26 March 2015 at 14:27, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > seems reasonable. (I'd quite like that for v4 too, though it wouldn't
> > cope with non-contiguous netmask ;)
> non-contiguous netmasks for IPv4 addresses configured on an interface?
> is that possible?
>On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 01:48:03PM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
>> While here can I convert " autoconfprivacy" to " privacy" or "+privacy"?
>
>Please don't change this. The name of the option was chosen such that
>web searches come up with the proper RFC and related references.
Yes, I agree. Th
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 01:48:03PM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> While here can I convert " autoconfprivacy" to " privacy" or "+privacy"?
Please don't change this. The name of the option was chosen such that
web searches come up with the proper RFC and related references.
On 26 March 2015 at 14:27, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> seems reasonable. (I'd quite like that for v4 too, though it wouldn't
> cope with non-contiguous netmask ;)
>
non-contiguous netmasks for IPv4 addresses configured on an interface?
is that possible? what's the use case?
perhaps you're confusin
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 01:48:03PM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
| How do people feel about printing the prefixlen in CIDR notation? I'm
| annoyed about outputs not fitting in 80 chars when using autoconf magic:
|
| -inet6 fd00::f2de:f1ff:fe6a:15d1 prefixlen 64 autoconf pltime 3594 vltime 7194
|
On 2015/03/26 13:48, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> How do people feel about printing the prefixlen in CIDR notation? I'm
> annoyed about outputs not fitting in 80 chars when using autoconf magic:
>
> -inet6 fd00::f2de:f1ff:fe6a:15d1 prefixlen 64 autoconf pltime 3594 vltime 7194
> +inet6 fd00::f2de:f1f
How do people feel about printing the prefixlen in CIDR notation? I'm
annoyed about outputs not fitting in 80 chars when using autoconf magic:
-inet6 fd00::f2de:f1ff:fe6a:15d1 prefixlen 64 autoconf pltime 3594 vltime 7194
+inet6 fd00::f2de:f1ff:fe6a:15d1/64 autoconf pltime 3594 vltime 7194
While
18 matches
Mail list logo
