On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 12:10:54PM +0100, joerg@britannica.bec.de wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 10:42:50AM +0100, Quentin Garnier wrote:
> > While the patch itself had a number of issues, one which is probably the
> > most relevant is that it used a fictive SIOCSLIFADDR.  itojun argued
> > that this ioctl was never defined because KAME wanted Add/Delete
> > semantics for address manipulations (for any family) and not a Set one.
> 
> Just to point to existing solutions: FreeBSD and DragonFly have an ioctl
> SIOCSIFLLADDR to alter the link-layer address. While I agree that having
> add/delete semantic is useful, the primary link-layer address is IMO
> special and should be threated as such.

FWIW, I believe the consensus in previous discussions was existing
ioctls SIOCALIFADDR/SIOCGLIFADDR/SIOCDLIFADDR are sufficient for
getting/modifying link-layer addresses.

Dave 

-- 
David Young             OJC Technologies
dyoung@ojctech.com      Urbana, IL * (217) 278-3933