On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 05:48:16AM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote: > * Reyk Flöter <reyk.floe...@googlemail.com> [2014-05-15 01:04]: > > > On 15.05.2014, at 00:46, Henning Brauer <lists-openbsdt...@bsws.de> wrote: > > > * Mark Kettenis <mark.kette...@xs4all.nl> [2014-05-15 00:15]: > > >> I don't think this is a good idea; didn't we establish the other day > > >> that "ifconfig <if> eui64" already did what your +inet6 does? > > > almost, it's ifconfig <if> inet6 eui64 - but that isn't all THAT > > > intuitive. I like +inet6 as the opposite of -inet6. > > We don't have "+" something. It is foo or -foo but not +foo. I know that > > inet6 is already used for the regular addresses, but +inet6 sounds like an > > inconsistent workaround for a workaround. I don't like it. > > just inet6 doesn't work, since that is already used to show all inet6 > addrs. > i find +inet6 very intuitive...
This should just die. Did you ever do ifconfig em0 inet or ifconfig em0 inet6? I never did and I have a few interfaces with a lot of IPs on them. It is a useless gimmick of ifconfig. > > To "enable IPv6" link-local I would rather prefer two options to put > > either "inet6 eui64" (or an alias like "inet6 link-local") or an actual > > inet6 address in your hostname.if. The latter should automatically > > remove the flag and enable the link-local address - does it work this > > way? > > as said many times, yes it does. > -- :wq Claudio
