On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 05:46:12PM +0100, Henning Brauer wrote: > * Mike Belopuhov <m...@belopuhov.com> [2015-03-26 14:36]: > > On 26 March 2015 at 14:27, Stuart Henderson <st...@openbsd.org> 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 confusing this with non-contiguous netmasks in the radix > > tree that are entered by the ipsec flows containing port numbers? > > I don't think we need to worry about non-contiguous netmasks here. > > > 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 would love to move to CIDR notation - are > we breaking people's scripts with that? The inet side has been the same > for, what, decades?
The v6_info() function in the installer would need a change, but that's an easy fix. -- -=[rpe]=-
