From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 15:41:07 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 15:40:59 -0400 Received: from spike.porcupine.org ([168.100.189.2]:46090 "EHLO spike.porcupine.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 15:40:46 -0400 Subject: Re: notion of a local address [was: Re: ioctl SIOCGIFNETMASK: ip alias In-Reply-To: "from Alan Cox at Sep 6, 2001 08:34:15 pm" To: Alan Cox Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 15:41:06 -0400 (EDT) Cc: Wietse Venema , Andrey Savochkin , Matthias Andree , Andi Kleen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org X-Time-Zone: USA EST, 6 hours behind central European time X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL82 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Message-Id: <20010906194106.E66BCBC06C@spike.porcupine.org> From: wietse@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Alan Cox: > Strict RFC compliance isn't a real world goal. I doubt any mailer implements > SEND, SOML or SAML for example. I definitely agree that the #Number and > [a.b.c.d] forms are important though, and that you need to be able to > answer the question. However you need to answer it "is this my address > from the viewpoint of the peer on this connection". I don't see why > user configured data isnt a solution. For the 99.9% of normal cases > SIOCGIFCONF is going to give the right data. People doing clever things > will have to set up config files. simple easy - hard possible. Cool. I will not waste further time on this until someone takes SIOCGIFCONF away. Wietse