On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 01:47:53PM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 12:27:10PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > On 2016/04/12 13:00, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > > Relying on the "scopeid" field is not a viable long-term solution. I'm
> > > spending too much time these days trying to figure out which interface
> > > correspond to which index.
> > >
> > > Here's a difference in output, then the diff itself. ok?
> > >
> > > @@ -1,31 +1,29 @@
> > > lo0: flags=8049<UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 32768
> > > + index 4
> > > priority: 0
> > > groups: lo
> > > inet6 ::1 prefixlen 128
> > > inet6 fe80::1%lo0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x4
> > > inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 0xff000000
> > > em0:
> > > flags=18b43<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,PROMISC,ALLMULTI,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST,MPSAFE>
> > > mtu 1500
> > > - lladdr f0:de:f9:1d:88:53
> > > + index 1 lladdr f0:de:f9:1d:88:53
> >
> > This will break scripts, e.g. "awk '/lladdr/ {print $2}'"
> >
> > I would expect putting it after lladdr would be better for the sort
> > of scripts a user is likely to write, but bsd.rd would need a change
> > if that was done, it uses sed 's/.*lladdr \(.*\)/\1/p;d'
> >
> > On a new line would be safer.
>
> How about appending to the flags line, like this?
>
> lo0: flags=8049<UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 32768 index 4
>
Or on the line with priority? The risk of breaking scripts that way is
probably smaller.
--
:wq Claudio
