From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jiri Pirko Subject: Re: ifconfig doesn't show assignment ip-addresses Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 13:57:54 +0100 Message-ID: <20131210125754.GC2469@minipsycho.orion> References: <20131209153238.GA10317@omega> <20131210105741.GA2469@minipsycho.orion> <20131210110648.GA18196@omega> <20131210114339.GB2469@minipsycho.orion> <20131210114847.GA20146@omega> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Alexander Aring Return-path: Received: from mail-ee0-f50.google.com ([74.125.83.50]:40310 "EHLO mail-ee0-f50.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751498Ab3LJM56 (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Dec 2013 07:57:58 -0500 Received: by mail-ee0-f50.google.com with SMTP id c41so2185766eek.23 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 04:57:57 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131210114847.GA20146@omega> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 12:48:48PM CET, alex.aring@gmail.com wrote: >On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 12:43:39PM +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 12:06:49PM CET, alex.aring@gmail.com wrote: >> >Hi, >> > >> >thanks for your reply. >> > >> >On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 11:57:41AM +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> >> Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 04:32:39PM CET, alex.aring@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >Hi, >> >> > >> >> >On current net-next with a lowpan interface created with: >> >> > >> >> >ip link add link wpan0 name lowpan0 type lowpan >> >> > >> >> >I don't see any ipv6 addresses in ifconfig anymore. The addresses exist, >> >> >because I can ping my device. >> >> >> >> >> >> Can you see the address in "ip a" ? Would you send me output of >> >> "ifconfig" and "ip a" please? Is this a problem for lowpan only or do >> >> you see this with other device types as well? >> >> >> >> The problem is that ifconfig parses /proc/net/if_inet6 which changed >> flag format from 2 hexa chars to 3. >> I will send revert for this change in couple of minutes. >> > >ah, nice to known. Thanks! > >What would be a proper solution to add a u32 flag property? Or we never >should change this, because we want backwards compatibility? I think that we should leave this as it is. The u32 flags are reachable via Netlink and that is the preferred way nowadays. > >- Alex