On (03/04/09 19:41), Kacheong Poon wrote: >> >> The problem with having icmp_bsd_compat as an ndd tunable is >> that we now need to have *all* apps running in bsd compat mode, >> or all apps running in the non-compat mode. > > > I guess you are going to add a new option for an app > to override this. Right? This is good :-)
I was actually thinking of this in terms of "what do we not need to support in ipadm", but yes, there should be an RFE to provide a setsockopt for this. and if no one is ever changing the default value of icmp_bsd_compat via ndd (which is really what I was trying to find out- if there is anyone who actually touches this), then there's no need to support it via ndd either. Given that it is an "all or none" option, I would be expect that it is infrequently touched. > >> I don't think "interesting alignment" is something we should >> throw on the admin's shoulder to figure out. > > > Actually, it is probably not the sys admin who may be > interested in this. There are third parties who > configure a Solaris machine to do specific things and > ship the configured machine to customers. And customers > just use the machine as is. So I am wondering if this > is useful to those third party vendors. Again, the question is, "who is using this?". For far too long we have speculated that a tunable "might be useful" and carried this baggage around, without actually checking if the tunable is actually used. --Sowmini
