On 07-06-2011 22:46, Patrick Burroughs wrote:

The new replacement for ifconfig is 'ip'; 'ip link show' is equivalent to the old 'ifconfig', without arguments.

I don't see the current assigned IP when doing 'ip link show' so I don't see how that is equivalent to using only ifconfig without arguments. As a side note, at first glance it seems 'ip' needs a lot more typing than ifconfig needs, at least for the stuff I use more often. -- Mauro Santos

On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Mauro Santos wrote:

On 07-06-2011 22:46, Patrick Burroughs wrote:

...

The new replacement for ifconfig is 'ip'; 'ip link show' is equivalent to the old 'ifconfig', without arguments.

I don't see the current assigned IP when doing 'ip link show' so I don't see how that is equivalent to using only ifconfig without arguments.

As a side note, at first glance it seems 'ip' needs a lot more typing than ifconfig needs, at least for the stuff I use more often.

You should use just use "ip addr" rather than "ifconfig" (which saves you one character ;-) ). -t

Tom Gundersen (2011-06-08 16:54):

On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Mauro Santos wrote:

...

On 07-06-2011 22:46, Patrick Burroughs wrote:

...

The new replacement for ifconfig is 'ip'; 'ip link show' is equivalent to the old 'ifconfig', without arguments.

I don't see the current assigned IP when doing 'ip link show' so I don't see how that is equivalent to using only ifconfig without arguments.

As a side note, at first glance it seems 'ip' needs a lot more typing than ifconfig needs, at least for the stuff I use more often.

You should use just use "ip addr" rather than "ifconfig" (which saves you one character ;-) ).

-t

Or, rather, "ip a" for addreses and link status (like /sbin/ifconfig) "ip r" for routes (like /sbin/route) -- -- Rogutės Sparnuotos

On 8 June 2011 20:13, Evangelos Foutras wrote:

On 9 June 2011 01:57, Rogutės Sparnuotos wrote:

...

Or, rather, "ip a" for addreses and link status (like /sbin/ifconfig) "ip r" for routes (like /sbin/route)

Nice. If only it displayed RX/TX bytes as well, I would totally not miss ifconfig. :)

(*Secretly hopes that someone will point out how this is done.* :3)

Actually wait, it does that with 'ip -s link'. :p However, I would prefer a more human-friendly output (e.g. in MiB/GiB/etc. instead of just bytes).

On Tuesday 07 of June 2011 23:47:35 Tom Gundersen wrote:

Hi Marek,

On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:36 PM, Marek Otahal wrote:

...

Since net-tools are going to be abandoned (I was wondering how i "misuninstalled" the package), what do i use as an alternative to ifconfig? I use wicd or manually bring LAN up, and it occurred to me network interfaces failed due to missing ifconfig command. What is the new one?

The new one is "ip", found in the iproute2 package.

I didn't mention this explicitly, as this upgrade is not supposed to remove net-tools, so in principle ifconfig should still work.

Cheers,

Tom

Patrick, Tom, thank you both for explanation. net-tools weren't installed as explicit, so some upgrade removed them from my system. I'll test if eg wicd can handle just 'ip' now. Thank you, cheers, Mark -- Marek Otahal :o)

2011/6/8 Cédric Girard :

Maybe this should be added to the announcement (the fact that net-tools will still be there).

-- Cédric Girard

Yeah, this should be in the announcement. I thought net-tools would be removed completely. -- Vic Demuzere

On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 1:33 AM, Javier Vasquez wrote:

Just one officially supported?  How about boxes with 2 nics acting as routers or gateways?  It sounds to me a bit limited...  netcfg is there but it's not the default,

We hope netcfg will become the preferred networking solution in the future. If you cannot use netcfg, and the basic functionality we provide in initscripts is not sufficient, then the old net-tools way will continue to work for the foreseeable future.

and most arch wiki documentation show a way without netcfg, :-)  Perhaps time to change the arch wikies when the change take place, :-)

Yes, documentation should be updated. Help with this is very much appreciated! I will personally start working on this once the release is out (time permitting).

Did I misunderstand the statement?

No, I don't think so ;-) Cheers, Tom

On 06/08/2011 01:41 AM, Tom Gundersen wrote:

Yes, documentation should be updated. Help with this is very much appreciated! I will personally start working on this once the release is out (time permitting).

Hey Tom, what help do you need with the documentation?

On 06/08/2011 04:57 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote:

On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 4:17 PM, mangust wrote:

...

On 06/08/2011 01:41 AM, Tom Gundersen wrote:

...

Yes, documentation should be updated. Help with this is very much appreciated! I will personally start working on this once the release is out (time permitting). Hey Tom, what help do you need with the documentation? Thanks for offering to help!

We should find the places in the wiki that suggest using the old net-tools configuration options in rc.conf, and see if the use-cases they are describing can be replaced by our new syntax, or by upgrading to netcfg. If so, we should update the documentation to reflect this. Otherwise, we leave it as it is, as net-tools will still be supported. Possibly, we should add a comment that net-tools needs to be installed for it to work.

Cheers,

Tom No problem!

I'll search the Wiki for this information and will update it. Cheers, mangust

Great! Thanks!

-t

Hi, Is there also an alternative to netstat ??? Thanks. Regards, Wim

On 9 June 2011 16:37, Wim Van Deun wrote:

Is there also an alternative to netstat ???

ss :p

/etc/conf.d/bridges (bridge-utils) still has old rc.conf example: # example: # # in /etc/rc.conf: # eth0="eth0 up" # eth1="eth1 up" # br0="br0 192.168.0.2 netmask 255.255.255.0 up" # INTERFACES=(lo eth0 eth1 br0) # # in /etc/conf.d/bridges # bridge_br0="eth0 eth1" # BRIDGE_INTERFACES=(br0) # In addition bridged interfaces doesn't work with new rc.conf syntax (unknown interface br0). How to set up?