Carlos Morgado wrote:
>
> The correct semantics would be to specify an IP address not an interface on
> the dhcpd. eth0:0 is 2.0 semantics. (fix dhcpd :))
>
Now for anything *beneath* IP then you would surely need to to bind to
an interface since the application might not know anything about IP. The
DHCP daemon for example uses udp and need to know on what interface its
bound.
Now the ISC dhcpd server is smart enough that if you give it an eth0
interface it will scan for aliases and deal with them but I cant just
say ignore eth0 and eth0:1 trafic and use only eth0:2 trafic.
I guess that what I need is a virtual network device below the IP layer.
I can probably do that with ethertap and binding a tap0 interface to
eth0 with the required parameters. I dont think that the aliasing code
is wrong anymore after reading your reply but it certainly lets you
believe that its a seperate interface. How about changing ifconfig so
that we dont see any eth0:xx but rather have all this information
directly in eth0? That way people wouldnt be surprised that eth0:xx
doesnt apear in the routing table for example.
I'm serious here, shouldnt ifconfig report *only* eth0 then?
Daniel Shane
--- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 23 2000 - 21:00:13 EST