On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 02:03:33PM +0930, Thyer, Matthew wrote: > > There's a small error in this pat of the summary. It is not the case > > that stf interfaces are created instead of stf0 interfaces in all cases. > > Here's a table showing the changes. > > > > Command DEV Version > > ifconfig stf stf0 old > > ifconfig stf0 stf0 old > > ifconfig 6to4 <fail> old > > ifconfig stf stf new > > ifconfig stf0 stf0 new > > ifconfig 6to4 6to4 new > > Why is there a need to break backward compatibility? > > Why cannot "ifconfig stf" result in "stf0" being printed and created? I could probably change that part back, but it would complicate the code for little or no benefit. If a real user this change actually impacts steps forward, I'll add the extra code too add behavior back. The only reason stf has cloning at all is that it's a really nice example of cloning without all the added complication of multiple interfaces. It does a very nice job of that. When you get right down to it, cloing stf devices is stupid because you can only have exactly one of them. > Does it make sense to have a device created called "stf", and if so > why wasn't this required in the old implementation ? As much sense as any name. As long as you can configure the interface with the tools you use, any interface name you want it fine. Interface names exist for admin convenience and as a way for cloning devices to decide if they can create the interface the admin has requested. They mean nothing to the kernel. -- Brooks -- Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE. PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529 9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:59 UTC