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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
