Re: route command baffles me.
- From: gl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Jay G. Scott)
- Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 23:24:46 +0000 (UTC)
In article <130gji5j8eceh79@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
CptDondo <yan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Jay G. Scott wrote:
both physical interfaces are on the motherboard. i was hoping there would
be a way to have eth1 omitted from ifconfig -a output, since i only have a
text console at the moment and it would save me some typing and it would
be quicker to recognize that eth0 was set up as i wanted. i guessed,
wrongly, that there would be a way to do that. there isn't. i get it.
point made.
ifconfig eth0
will dump all the info for eth0
yeah, i know. and you told me ifconfig would show me just the active
interfaces. i assume that's correct; i haven't been able to try it yet.
thanks.
j.
--
Jay Scott 512-835-3553 gl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Head of Sun Support, Sr. Operating Systems Specialist
Applied Research Labs, Computer Science Div. S224
University of Texas at Austin
.
- References:
- route command baffles me.
- From: Jay G. Scott
- Re: route command baffles me.
- From: CptDondo
- Re: route command baffles me.
- From: Jay G. Scott
- Re: route command baffles me.
- From: CptDondo
- route command baffles me.
- Prev by Date: Re: route command baffles me.
- Next by Date: Re: route command baffles me.
- Previous by thread: Re: route command baffles me.
- Next by thread: Re: route command baffles me.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|