Peter Memishian wrote: > > Has anybody run into any issues the dladm model of persistent&missing? > > Given the prevalence of "-t" in dladm subcommands (and other subcommands > that are always temporary such as connect-wifi), the offered model seems a > bit more complex than that. We can hope that no one is using "-t" ...
I wasn't asking about dladm in general; I was solely asking whether
there are issues around dladm handling persistent object the way it does
- allowing them to go missing.
Erik
