> Darren Reed wrote: > > > 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.
In theory, a property could be given some semantics per interface, which is why set-prop takes the -i flag (to allow for this degree of freedom where needed), but it's not clear to me that this actually creates useful features in all cases (e.g., allowing the admin to set ULP properties per interface could allow too many tunables, which conflicts with the selfg-tuning goal?) On (01/14/09 18:02), Kacheong Poon wrote: > > But is there a reason why a ULP property needs to be tied > to an IP interface (or address)? Using the example above, > what is the anonymous port range used by an SCTP association > bound to both bge1 and bge2? And how about a TCP socket > bind(INADDR_ANY/0) and then connect()? Which anonymous port > range does the stack use? Does it make sense for the stack > to "randomly" pick a local address and use that range even > when latter on the address is not the preferred one to do > the connect()? In addition to all these questions, I would ask similar questions about ipmp, and how restrictions on inaddr_any/port combinations complicate the picture. --Sowmini > > > > -- > > K. Poon. > kacheong.poon at sun.com > > _______________________________________________ > brussels-dev mailing list > brussels-dev at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/brussels-dev
