Sowmini.Varadhan at Sun.COM wrote: > On (01/13/09 03:10), Darren Reed wrote: > > ... >> It may even be appropriate to break up your properties into two groups >> below that: those that are related to IP intefaces and those that are >> related to the protocols themselves. For example, what does it mean >> to use ipadm to set tcp_smallest_anon_port for bge0? Or are there >> plans to make properties such as these per-IP interface too? >> > > The eventual goal is to make every property applicable per interface, > returning some appropriate error when the combination is not meaningful > (e.g., set-prop tcp_smallest_anon_port on bge0). >
There's every chance that specifying that property, on a per-interface basis, could be meaningful, if/when it is assigned an address. I chose this example for that reason - it doesn't seem like it should be per- interface but it can be applied in that way. If, for example, bge1 is 1.1.1.1 and bge2 is 2.2.2.2, then I can have the same application getting anonymous ports from different ranges. Or I can specify different reserved port sets for them (a better example that doesn't seem like it should immediately apply.) So I suppose the point of this is, is there any reason not to allow all ULP properties to be per interface in the same way as for IP properties? And should properties only be tied to interface names? Or also addresses? Consider the various modes of IPMP configuration and D/R... Darren
