>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.
The way we have handled this in the past is: - all input paths must cope - before an output path is changed - to support cut & paste - to support scripted changes Normally, we need a full release cycle, to make sure noone gets screwed... Maybe there is a fast path? But.. maybe not.
