On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 03:26:17PM +0200, Erik P. Skaalerud wrote: > Joseph Garcia wrote: > >I was using ifconfig when it occurred to me how non-intuitive it is > >having to use 255.255.255.255 as the netmask when adding an address > >that is on the same subnet as an address already on the interface. For > >example, if you already have 192.168.0.1/24 on fxp0, then you should be > >able to add the following address with this command: > > > > ifconfig fxp0 add 192.168.0.2 netmask 255.255.255.0 > > > >instead of: > > > > ifconfig fxp0 add 192.168.0.2 netmask 255.255.255.255 > > > > I second this. I had problems with this when I first used IP aliasing on > FreeBSD long time ago because I had the wrong netmask set. (/24 instead > of /32).
It's not that easy. This has nothing to do with the interface, but is a restriction from the routing stack. Once that restriction goes away, there's no reason why aliases wouldn't allow it too. > I second your thoughts about "delete". You don't delete it, you remove it. You delete the route. > I have another suggestion for ifconfig aswell. Show netmaskes in human > readable format (decimal) instead of HEX. I mean, who really thinks > about netmasks in HEX formats? Me. Actually, decimal netmasks are *not* human readable, because it is much harder to determine the *binary* affect they have. Joerg
