Groups > comp.os.linux.networking > #1939

ifconfig(8) vs. iproute

From	Ivan Shmakov <oneingray@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	comp.os.linux.networking, comp.os.linux.misc
Subject	ifconfig(8) vs. iproute
Followup-To	comp.os.linux.networking
Date	2013-02-09 17:18 +0000
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<871ucp8ky7.fsf_-_@violet.siamics.net> (permalink)
References	(16 earlier) <ketnio$d8v$1@news.albasani.net> <keurcp$1t66$1@saria.nerim.net> <keuu7k$u32$1@news.albasani.net> <kf5geh$140o$1@saria.nerim.net> <kf5onb$mf0$1@dont-email.me>

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Followups directed to: comp.os.linux.networking

Show all headers | View raw

>>>>> J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> writes:
>>>>> Pascal Hambourg explained:

	[Cross-posting to news:comp.os.linux.networking, and setting
	Followup-To: there.]

 >> All these *except eth0:1* are indeed examples of virtual interfaces.

 > Is *alias* the correct name for eth0:{0,1,2,3,...} eth1:{0,1,2,3...}
 > etc?

 > From the manual page for ifconfig

	... Isn't ifconfig considered obsolete these days, in favor of
	the almighty ip(8)?  And, FWIW, ip(8) doesn't seem to contain
	the word "alias."  (And neither does its output; see below.)

	AIUI, initially, Linux (the kernel) allowed just one IPv4
	address per interface.  Thus, the notion of "aliases" -- several
	"logical" network interface per single "physical" one -- was
	introduced.  With the kernel's IP implementation extended to
	handle the case in an (arguably) better and more logical
	fashion, the very notion of an "interface alias" became
	obsolete.  (And, as was already noted in this thread, these
	weren't "first-class" interfaces to begin with; for instance, I
	doubt that one'd use such an "alias" in the route(8) command.)

$ ip addr list 
1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 16436 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN 
    link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00
    inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo
    inet6 ::1/128 scope host 
       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
2: eth5: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast state UNKNOWN qlen 1000
    link/ether f0:12:34:56:78:9a brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
    inet 192.0.2.34/24 brd 192.0.2.255 scope global eth5
    inet6 2001:db8:1337::cafe/64 scope global 
       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
    inet6 2001:db8:2001::da:42/64 scope global 
       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
...
$ 

[...]

-- 
FSF associate member #7257

Back to comp.os.linux.networking | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

ifconfig(8) vs. iproute Ivan Shmakov <oneingray@gmail.com> - 2013-02-09 17:18 +0000
  Re: ifconfig(8) vs. iproute Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2013-02-09 18:36 +0000
  Re: ifconfig(8) vs. iproute J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2013-02-09 18:55 +0000

csiph-web