On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 12:04:47PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > As our ifconfig(8) man page says we support it, and route(8) also
> > supports it, I prefer fixing inet6 netmask.
>
> accepting a netmask also requires thinking about the behaviour in the
> discontig case (surely that means detectin
Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 09:58:34AM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > how about the text "use prefixlen instead of netmask for inet6"
>
> Much better error message, I have changed my diff.
>
> But we still have to decide whether we want to fix or disable inet6
> netmask.
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 09:58:34AM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> how about the text "use prefixlen instead of netmask for inet6"
Much better error message, I have changed my diff.
But we still have to decide whether we want to fix or disable inet6
netmask. Man page in FreeBSD says (Inet only.),
Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> + if (which == MASK)
> + errx(1, "inet6 needs prefixlen, not netmask");
needs?
you can configure an inet6 without prefixlen, and one is inferred.
how about the text "use prefixlen instead of netmask for inet6"
ask?
>
> We can also do it the other way around and forbid ifconfig inet6
> netmask.
sorry, thats what i meant.
> > In route we removed a few quirks like that with notice in current.html ,
> > why not here?
>
> route(8) still accepts netmask.
Yes, i wrote t
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 11:14:45PM +0100, Sebastian Benoit wrote:
> The alternative is to not allow netmask for ipv6 and only / and
> prefixlen
> . Why support such a crazy way of specifying the mask?
We can also do it the other way around and forbid ifconfig inet6
netmask.
>
Alexander Bluhm(alexander.bl...@gmx.net) on 2019.11.14 22:50:50 +0100:
> Hi,
>
> While writing my ifconfig regress test I realized that IPv6 netmasks
> are parsed, but silently ignored. Ignoring commandline parameters
> feels wrong and is inconsistent to IPv4.
>
> Of course I don't expect anyone
Hi,
While writing my ifconfig regress test I realized that IPv6 netmasks
are parsed, but silently ignored. Ignoring commandline parameters
feels wrong and is inconsistent to IPv4.
Of course I don't expect anyone to use something like this:
ifconfig vether0 inet6 fdd7:e83e:66bc:::17 netmask
