From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "John W. Linville" Subject: Re: [RFC] ip / ifconfig redesign Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 09:01:00 -0500 Message-ID: <20051205140057.GC24764@tuxdriver.com> References: <200512022253.19029.a1426z@gawab.com> <200512031646.45332.a1426z@gawab.com> <4391E4FC.1040200@candelatech.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Al Boldi , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-net@vger.kernel.org Return-path: To: Ben Greear Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4391E4FC.1040200@candelatech.com> Sender: linux-net-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Sat, Dec 03, 2005 at 10:33:32AM -0800, Ben Greear wrote: > Al Boldi wrote: > > >Here specifically, ip/ifconfig is implemented upside-down requiring a > >link/dev to exist for an address to be defined, in effect containing layer > >3 inside layer 2, when an address should be allowed to be defined w/o a > >link/dev much like an app is allowed to be defined w/o an address. > > [Removed lkml from CC list] > > You can add multiple virtual IP addresses to physical interfaces. It > makes no sense to have an IP without any association to an interface > in my opinion. Often, when you have multiple interfaces, you most > definately > want different IPs associated specifically with particular interfaces. > Think about redundant paths, routers, firewalls, and such. The association between IP addresses and links is already a bit murky. Reference the arp_announce sysctl for what I mean. I recall Dave M. emphasizing on at least one occassion that IP addresses belong to the _box_, not to the link. I think Al B.'s idea merits some consideration. I definitely think we blur the distinctions between L2 and L3 a bit too much in places. Of course, patches would be helpful... John -- John W. Linville linville@tuxdriver.com