On Wed, 06.11.13 15:09, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson (johan...@gmail.com) wrote:
> > On 11/06/2013 03:00 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > >On Wed, 06.11.13 14:14, Mantas Mikulėnas (graw...@gmail.com) wrote: > > > >>On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Lennart Poettering > >><lenn...@poettering.net> wrote: > >>>I have my suspicions that that won't work out since there already are > >>>quite a few properties for addresses, no? There's scope, flags, > >>>label. For Point-To-Point stuff the address needs to be paired with a > >>>local one, and in other cases with a broadcast address. We should at > >>>least try to normalize this into different sections, no? > >>Hmm, when is explicitly setting the broadcast address ever necessary? > >There are some cases like that in hosting setups where people play games > >with this so that they can use tiny subnets while packing hosts as close > >as they can wihouting losing one (or two) adresses in each subnet for > >broadcast (and as network address)... > > Interesting first time I hear of this and I assume these "games" > became unnecessary with ipv6 thus no need to keep Broadcast around > no? Well, IPv4 will be with us for a long time still, so we cannot just make it go away, just because it might not be that important with IPv6 anymore... Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
