On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 04:13:21PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > it does not allow the second and subsequent interfaces to have a netmask or
> > broadcast address different from the first.
It was originally designed for just hooking the all-ones broadcast address
(for running dhcpd) and that was just an extension of the set_ipv4root()
interface only allowing a single address at the time
My reckoning on this when I last emailed Jacques was that there was no need
for the IPROOTMASK--allowing IPROOT="... eth0:10.0.0.255" should be enough.
-Paul
--
Nottingham, GB
