Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On mar, jun 07, 2005, Hans Ulrich Niedermann wrote: >> It may be desirable to be able to set "non-lo and non-dummy" while >> only "lo" and "dummy0" are up, though. > > I don't understand what you mean. > > I've talked about the new patch with the maintainer, and another user > which suggested a priority list should be used for interface names.
Current behaviour is that I select, say "eth0" from a list of "lo", "dummy0" and "eth0". Now I "ifdown eth0" and netspeed will continue to display eth0. I "ifup wlan0" and netspeed displays wlan0. I "ifdown wlan0" again and netspeed shows the "--" for eth0 or wlan0. The whole time netspeed ignored the lo and dummy0 interfaces. But if the drivers for eth0 and wlan0 aren't loaded when netspeed starts, netspeed doesn't list any interfaces but the lo and dummy0 interfaces. So I now can choose from a list of "lo" and "dummy0". But I cannot get netspeed into the "show any eth0 or wlan0 or whatever but not lo or dummy0" mode without actually creating such an interface first. So I was thinking of adding an option to the list like "any suitable device but lo or dummy*". > When I've brought it up on the debian-devel list, I was pointed to the > fact that one can always rename interfaces. Hence, the behavior is > probably plain wrong. That is correct. Linux specific, and conceptually wrong. But it works in 90% of cases. > My current proposal for the maintainer is to focus on the interface > which is the target of the "default" route -- if there's one -- or the > first UP interface. Which will - in most cases - be the loopback interface. And the loopback interface isn't all that interesting. However, if I have multiple ethernet interfaces, I may still want to monitor several of them, and not just the device with the default route. Oh, and BTW (now that we've started digging for unsolvable problems): Default route in IPv4 or IPv6? Gruß, Uli
