On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 10:53 -0500, Sowmini.Varadhan at Sun.COM wrote: > On (01/26/09 10:31), Sebastien Roy wrote: > > I think I've lost track of what the initial problem was. What is the > > problem with ipadm being able to manipulate both temporary and > > persistent configuration (either at the same time, or individually), and > > having ifconfig stay the way it is? > > The problem is that if you are allowed to mix and match temporary > and permanent commands, things get very tangled if you have permanent > operations on temporary objects. > > See: > http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/brussels-dev/2008-October/001059.html
The potential for the implementation to get complex is a fair observation (although I don't think that preventing persistent change to a temporary object is hard to do), but I don't think that implementation complexity should necessarily result in a change in project scope or requirements. I think we need to have a big picture in mind depicting the ultimate administrative model for networking. We can draw requirements out of that. Without this picture, we're making design decisions on a whim, which is uncomfortable. -Seb
