Desired behaviour of "ifconfig -alias"

[Oliver Fromme]

Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
 > Oliver Fromme wrote:
 > [...]
 > > The "-alias" parameter simply removes an address from an
 > > interface.  The term "alias" should really be avoided
 > > because it is misleading.  You can use "delete" or "remove"
 > > which do the same thing.  I think "-alias" should really
 > > be regarded to exist for backwards compatibility only.
 > > Personally I always use "delete".
 > > 
 > > If no IP address is specified, then it's not completely
 > > nonsensical to remove the first address.  In fact I've
 > > used that short-cut to quickly remove the only address
 > > from an interface.  I've used "ifconfig xyz0 delete"
 > > quite a lot.
 > 
 > Great.  Okay, so now we have someone who does in fact rely on this
 > behaviour, except with "delete" not -alias.

I just got used to it because it's a convenient shortcut,
because you neither have to type nor to copy&paste the IP.

 > FWIW, I still use alias/-alias.  Mainly because that's what has
 > existed historically, and the term "alias" is what is used in
 > reference to rc.conf ifconfig_iface_aliasX entries.

Maybe it would make sense to remove "alias" from the rc.conf
entries and simply number them.

 > Thus, it may be worthwhile to fix this only for the -alias option,
 > but leave "delete" and "remove" how they are.

I would be happy with that.  :)

Best regards
   Oliver

-- 
Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing b. M.
Handelsregister: Registergericht Muenchen, HRA 74606, USt-Id: DE204219783
Any opinions expressed in this message are personal to the author and may
not necessarily reflect the opinions of secnetix GmbH & Co KG in any way.
FreeBSD-Dienstleistungen, -Produkte und mehr:  http://www.secnetix.de/bsd

"If you think C++ is not overly complicated, just what is a protected
abstract virtual base pure virtual private destructor, and when was the
last time you needed one?"
        -- Tom Cargil, C++ Journal